Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Harrassment

Moved to subpage. --Random832 16:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

DiamondVoice (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards

Reposted because southphilly moved it up. I assume to escape administrator attention.

Thread retitled from "WP:OWN and a wikiproject about to get nasty".

I've been watching the debate here to see if it is suitable for the project to have a co-ordinator (who if you look at the history seems to be have just appointed himself after minimum consultancy and many people saying the post was unrequired). As a wikipedian of good standing, I wished to comment about the matter. However it seems that I don't have the right to do so according to a sole editor (not the same person as the co-ordinator). My position on this is very clear, all wikiprojects by their very nature should be inclusive - any attempt to say that wikipedians of good standing cannot imput into their development of a project that affects the community should be stamped on and stamped on hard. Projects do not exist outside of the regular norms of the community and should not be allowed to try and enforce guidelines that are not in line with the rest of the community.

I can see that this is about to get nasty and see the good ship HMS revertwar appearing on the horizon, can an admin pop across and have a look. --Fredrick day 20:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen more and more cases of Wikprojects trying to OWN articles. This needs to be addressed and stopped. Corvus cornix 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this isn't about a WP trying to own an article, it's about a user (allegedly) trying to own a WP. I do agree with your point, but it's not entirely relevant here :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This has moved on - the WP:OWN issues are still there and the same editor has now decided that only certain wikipedians areenfranchised. This is complete bollocks, wikiprojects do not get to opt out of community input. --Fredrick day 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation is getting ridiculous. Southphilly, realising that everyone else is in favour of scrapping a coordinator and my cleanup edits to the page, has taken to simply reverting the page without edit summaries (previously he kept insisting I needed to hold a vote on every change I wanted to make). I encourage anyone reading this to read the talkpage and notice my reaching of consensus of both issues with a variety of editors to that page: Southphilly instead accused me of vandalism, and has repeatedly reverted me, even as everyone else was expressing support for what I had done. Until Evrik took his wikibreak, he was also doing the same thing, and has also blatently canvassed people against me and other editors. I am finding this very wearing, and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator could please take a good look at this, as not only I, but three other editors have expressed their concerns that evrik and Southphilly are trying to own the project. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Awards

Action needs to be taken on this. See here for background. Evrik has now returned and he and southphilly are tagteaming each other in reverting against consensus. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dev920 has tried to hijack the WikiProject and is trying to force through the outcome she wants. She is being disruptive and is LYING. She is the one who is being harmful. --South Philly 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The page needs to be protected. --South Philly 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm lying? Who is accusing editors of vandalism for reverting the page to the version agreed by all editors except you? Really, if anyone thinks I'm lying, go read the talkpage, see all the editors lining up to disprove Southphilly's assertion. Look through the history, note the point at which southphilly realised that if he called for a vote he would lose it and took to reverting without explanation, or accusing editors of vandalism. Who's lying? It sure ain't me, it ain't Fredrick, it isn't Kathryn, or thuglas, or Michael, or WJBscribe, or any other editor who has supported my edits. Note that editing the page at any way Southphilly doesn't like is "hijacking", even though everyone else supports - WP:OWN anyone? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What you mean at the right version? the one where you try and exclude most wikipedians from having a say? --Fredrick day 17:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• People are welcome to comment, but otherwise its open to vote stacking. --South Philly 17:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

→ WikiProject Council or WP:Mediation guys. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

why? it's a straight forward WP:OWN - the actual co-ordinator bit is just the backdrop - the fundemental issue is an editor trying to remove/degrade the comments of others. --Fredrick day 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. It's a project for putting little decorations on other people's userpages -- I can only assume the purpose of this is to increase general morale and 'wikilove' -- and you're quibbling about who will be in charge? Give each other some awards, forget your concern for your own titles, eliminate the various levels of membership, and then get to the business of increasing wikilove. If you find this an important goal, pursue it; it certainly does not require a coordinator. Internal bickering wastes the community's time and distracts from your project's purpose. — Dan | talk 17:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Go tell that to southphilly and evrik. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I would remove the levels of membership, as everyone agrees with you - except southphilly and evrik, who keep putting it back against consensus, along with teh coordinator stuff and attenpts to restrict voting to members. Really, I think it's stupid too, but that isn't stopping them crying vandal. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually have no interest in who is in charge or the project - I only became involved because I queried the WP:OWN practices on the page. --Fredrick day 17:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Kirill below)Can I please ask an administrator to actually review the talkpage in question. Saying " This is stupid, just remove the membership" is all very well, but one may notice that there is a bloody-minded determination on the part of southphilly and evrik to prevent me from doing just that. If I revert one more time to the consensus version (read the page and one will find I am right) I will be breaking 3RR, and I'm fed up with southphilly just going "no, it's vandalism", even when I point out that three other people at least agree with me against southphilly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Far be it from me to criticize the idea of coordinators in general (although, honestly, why a twenty-member project that doesn't appear to actually do anything needs one, I don't know), but the behavior here is quite unseemly. WikiProjects should not try to fight the community at large; if people are concerned enough about your behavior to actively complain, it's a pretty good sign that you're doing something wrong. Trying to silence such criticism, or to insist that non-members (a silly distinction, in any case) have no voice, is utterly inappropriate. Kirill Lokshin 18:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I left a note requesting a mediation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dev920 objected to my role with the Barnstars. She acted boldly and removed me. A poll was put up by South Philly, Dev920 modified the poll. The whole things has gone back and forth. I want to participate, but I'm not sure what my role here is. --evrik ^(talk) 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what to do about this edit here. I came back from the weekend to find the edit war going on. Really, I think that Dev920 started the whole thing with this edit. I am perfectly happy to abide by the results of the poll, but think that leaving that section off pensing the resolution of the poll rewards her agressive behaviour. --evrik ^(talk) 18:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. The original discussion, in which I had no part, made it utterly clear that the role of a coordinator was a opposed, and furthermore, when southphilly put evrik forward as a candidate, every subsequent editor opposed. Evrik appointed himself coordinator anyway. That wasn't being bold, that was upholding consensus. However, after an edit war, southphilly tried to get around my quite reasonable assertion that the coordinator section main page beared absolutely no relation to the discussion it was based on by holding yet another poll. My change of the poll was also to reflect objections that the poll was closed to non-members, even though it affects everyone who ever receives an award. If Evrik wants to participate, he can contribute to discussions like every other normal member instead of reverting everything he doesn't like. I, and everyone else, have no objection to that, what we object to are his attempts to rule the project. (accusing me of "hijacking" for the crime of actually editing? Please.) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's not exactly true, but why let the facts get in the way of a good argument. --evrik ^(talk) 18:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm certainly not seeing any facts from you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Evrik was nominated, and he accepted. He was doing the job anyway and everyone on the wikiproject was fine with it. Dev920 didnt like the way he was running things so she joined the wikiproject and removed him as coordinator without asking anyone. I can site the relevant links if you want me to ... is that proof enough? --South Philly 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant links, relevant links, now, where is that most relevant link? Oh yeah, the original discussion about having a coordinator. Now, who was it who nominated evrik? Oh yeah, you. And who didn't want him? Oh yeah, everyone else. Now, unless you want to cite some magical link where some secret poll was held that confirmed that yes, we needed a coordinator, and yes, thet coordinator should be evrik, there's nothing much more to cite than that. The current poll is currently 8-1(you) against evrik remaining coordinator. But if you have other "proof", please, post it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Southphilly has reverted here and here against consensus, now not only that of the project, but also of the consensus here. Has he broken 3RR?

Looking back over this discussion, I'm seeing me posting links of all over the place and encouraging everyone to read the page. Evrik and southphilly, however, keep accusing me of lying, of telling half-truths, and saying that they have proof of this. Yet it never seems to show up. I wonder why. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

South Philly has taken it upon himself to repeatedly remove votes from the open poll to the "comments" section.[1],[2],[3]. I find this behavior most unacceptable, and disruptive.Proabivouac 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is... odd. I respectfully suggest to all parties involved that perspective has been lost, and that they should pause to reflect upon 1) what the purpose of this WikiProject is, and 2) how it benefits the encyclopedia. Personally, I see no need for any sort of bureaucracy here, with so few participants, and it seems to me that rules and procedures are being developed for, essentially, their own sake, which is not a good thing. The amount of discussion about who is a member of which category of members, and what that category means, is puzzling, at best. I would even say it's against the wiki philosophy, and suggest a straightforward list of participants until and unless some need for a bureaucracy is clearly shown -- but again, personal opinion. However... attempting to exclude participation by non-members is a serious problem, and perhaps an indication that the project's lost its way. All good-faith editors' contributions are of equal merit, in theory -- any structure that discounts opinions presented in good faith because those editors are "outsiders" is cliquish and reprehensible. I also agree with Proabivouac that removing others' comments is not acceptable behavior. Shimeru 20:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I wanted to address the comments about the size of the WP and the need for an admin. It's the the project size, but the scope of the work. The pages were created to try and make some order of the WP:BS anarchy, and the WikiProject was created to try and help build consensus and mediate disputes. I think that without some order, those pages will become anarchic and their utility to the community will be lessened. --evrik ^(talk) 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Okay. But... honestly, how do you think appointing yourself coordinator has helped to build consensus or mediate disputes? It seems rather to have caused disputes. I know these questions may sound arch, but they're meant as real questions: Exactly how have you been able to advance the project or the encyclopedia by acting as "coordinator"? And what tradeoff setbacks, if any, do you see have been made? Shimeru 10:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy?

Trying to look at this objectively, despite what Dev920 says, there was a general agreement that some coordination was needed, but there was no consensus on how to do this. I was nominated to coordinate here, which I then accepted. I was also listed as the coordinator – and there was no objection for a couple weeks. Is that consensus?

The next month, Dev920 summarily removes me. From there that page has gone back and forth about whether or not there is a coordinator.

A poll was started, and then that too has gone back and forth.

There has been a lot of opinion about this whole thing, but there has been almost no recitation of policy. So I have five questions.

1. Is there a policy about how a wikiproject determines who will lead or guide it (besides consensus)?
2. Is consensus achieved from lack of opposition? If so, how long does a question have to sit?
3. Is there a policy on the removal of such a person?
4. Is there a policy about polling people?
5. Is there a policy about who can vote in a poll?

I thought I was nominated to be coordinator, and was WP:AGF. My concern at this point is that rather than build consensus among the project members, Dev920 just acted, without even building consensus. If you look at the history, Dev920’s consensus to act was an agreement of two users. This started over disagreements on how two awards were handled. It should be obvious that I agree with South Philly about process and vote stacking, and disagree with Dev920 – but I’d like to get some objective answers to the five questions listed above.

Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 21:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a clear example of WP:CREEP, with some incivility and bad assumption? DanBeale 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

that I agree with South Philly about process and vote stacking - are you accusing editors of acting improperly in saying that the role of co-ordinator should be removed? why are they stacking votes? Why do you feel that normal wikipedia policies and guidelines do not apply to this project? You accept that it is standard wikipedia process that ANY editor can have a say about a project?

You ask one really one relevent question:

Is there a policy about who can vote in a poll? the answer is summed up in one sentence "wikipedia, the encylopedia anyone can edit". People get confused what wikiprojects are, they are just another set of community pages with a specific function, they work by the agreement of the those who share the goals of the wikiproject. However this is sometimes confused to mean that the people within the project have some special powers over the project pages - they don't. Those are community pages and thus South philly has ZERO authority to try and prevent any wikipedian in good standing, offering suggestions or saying "no this post of co-ordinator is not required". Membership of a project might be desirable to some but it is NOT required for a wikipedian to comment, offer suggestions or take part in any discussion that impact on wikipedia policy or process. Any attempts to prevent wikipedians having their say will be strongly resisted - the concept that only special people get to vote seems to me to against the spirit of the community (ARBCOM occupies a different space and purpose so the same does not apply there), As for removing the post - well the community is quite clearly saying "no it's unrequired" - that's all the policy that is needed. --Fredrick day 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsensical. This project should either shape up or be deleted. Just my opinion, I just joined because I like the barnstars but was wary due to the nonsense above. You would think that WikiProject Coordinator was something to be bestowed a place of honor on one's resume. Heh.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 22:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki. We don't have coordinators. If someone takes a key role in something it is usually because they have unceremoniously taken on a huge responsibility, and continue in the role because they have the trust of the community. They often ask similarly trusted people to help them in their efforts. These people rarely throw their weight around (and if so, usually for a very good reason) and don't claim any special rights or powers. They operate under the consensus guidelines. They are basically grunts with respect. I distrust anyone who claims to coordinate anything. I admire people who quietly get work done and don't claim any special role. So I'd suggest that this coordinator battle be solved by abandoning the entire idea of a coordinator. -- Samuel Wantman 08:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Samuel. Kirill is coordinator for WikiProject Military history because he puts in a lot of work; acknowledging his contributions with a title is the least we can do. From reading this thread, I'm not clear about what they've done to make this WikiProject a success. How about they simply stop this fighting & just make some contributions? -- llywrch 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST is huge. They essentially want someone to... um, blame if something goes wrong. But the best coordinator (or administrator, or bureaucrat, or anything) is the one that rarely, if ever, pulls rank, as Samuel indicates above. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dev920 has now taken over de facto control of the wikiproject by ousting Evrik. --South Philly 18:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

...right. Because evrik isn't posting on the awards page right now, and didn't just archive two awards. Also, I "control" the project because evrik allegedly isn't there, even though Smomo just rubbished my proposed intro and wrote another one which I agreed is better? You have serious power issues, mate. Stop making yourself look silly. 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody wanna help me block open proxies?

The George Reeves Vandal/BoxingWear person has been vandalising my user talk page ever since I protected his favorite vandalism target, the talk page of Rocky Marciano. Every one of his IPs which does not begin with 66.99 or 64.107 can be reliably blocked as an open proxy. If anyone wants to help I'd sure appreciate it.

Bigger issue: does anyone have any ideas on how to deal with this persistent pest? He reserves his worst abuse for the people who try to reason with him, so beware. He edits from the Chicago Public Library and Triton College (that's where he's at tonight, at least until they kick him out). Antandrus (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the public library but have you tried sending a note to Triton? JoshuaZ 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well it's a pain while it's happening, but think of it as a service to the project - the more open proxies we find and block, the better off we are :-) Guy (Help!) 11:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. He can help us smoke 'em out. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, would people please keep an eye open for his persistent returns to the noticeboard, sneakily vandalising this section itself? Thanks much, Antandrus (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate userpage by Saikano

Resolved

There's a new user I've been trying to WP:ADOPT and steer the right way (somewhat unsuccessfully). The user has a history of inappropriate edits, but is not a vandal-only account. Recently I noticed this diff. I'm not quite sure if it should just have gone to AIV or if someone else should have a word with him. —dgies^t_c 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe I recall a report on this user on this page previously, too. x42bn6 Talk 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There was, regarding his userpage and signature, I believe. A similar issue. As to the matter at hand... mm, I don't know. From a look at his contributions, his behavior seems to have gotten a little better, but at the same time, I don't know whether he's ever made any useful contributions. Not sure I'd write him off just yet. Will drop him a note. Shimeru 20:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

His behavior hasn't really improved. We told him to make more article space edits if he wanted to improve, but he hasn't. He continues to try to use Wikipedia as a social networking site and hub for his non-notable anti-child porn organization. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mm, so it seems. Well, given his subsequent response to the messages, I have to support the block. Doesn't look like he's taking things very seriously at all. Shimeru 22:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just nominating it for MfD and I saw it already went through one a few weeks ago for much the same nonsense. I have tagged as CSD G4. —dgies^t_c 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This user's already been blocked indefinitely for continued disruption, and the user page was deleted for containing personal information, so I imagine we're done here. --Coredesat 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indef block of User:DoDoBirds and User:Rajsingam

Resolved

I had blocked Rajsingam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 31 hours yesterday following the incident reported here by User:Netmonger (see the report). Today, using his sockpuppet account DoDoBirds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he attacked me personally before attacking Jimbo Wales on our talk pages. I immediately blocked DoDo and extended Rajsingam block to indef. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Updates 1

I've been contacted lately by User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam claiming he is the owner of both above-mentioned accounts and that he was betrayed by 2 of his friends with whom he shared the password of his accounts. After further explanations i decided to unblock the main account User:Rajsingam after being assured that it won't happen again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

His accusations

He has accused me of using his blocked account which is totally untrue. All my IP's are known and any check user will determine whether I really did misuse his account or not. I am sure his accusations are against WP:LIBEL. Please let me know what is a the process to clear my name from such silly accusations. Thanks RaveenS 13:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide us w/ a link to the accusations you are refering to? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion - Removal of a userbox

I recently removed a userbox [4] here from user:Embargo. It appears as though the version i removed was vandalized (I am not too sure). Now, Embargo is claiming that I have vandalized his page, and several other things. I just wanted to make sure that my actions were appropriate to remove the version of the userbox listed above. If it was innapropriate in the eyes of other admin, I will have no issue apolagizing to him however, I feel anything that states, that they support the massacre of another people is innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I actualy made a mistake above [5] is the diff where I removed the userbox, the one above shows the userbox before I removed it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Er... yes, that certainly seems like an inapppropriate userbox. I think you did the right thing. I'd say you might have requested its removal, first, but judging by his talk page, that's been tried unsuccessfully... several times. Shimeru 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There was previously a fairly long discussion about User:Embargo's userbox... I have no idea what the final consensus was, but I believe most had accepted his most recent version. --Onorem 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he changed it back after I removed the bad version. The version I removed stated, "This user supports Hezbolla to israelli massacres." -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(EC) The version that reads "This user supports [[Hezbollah|resistance]] to [[Israeli]] [[massacres|hostilities]]."? Really? Strange. Shimeru 20:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Was just trying to provide some background for any interested. And you had asked on his userpage for a discussion that said his userbox could stay. The "bad version" had been altered in this edit earlier today. I'm assuming that Embargo didn't notice the changes when he reverted the rest of the vandalism. --Onorem 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That is what I was looking for. I have no issue with the current revision. Thanks for the background, much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I do, though. If the content is unacceptable in the open, then it's unacceptable when it's "hidden" behind pipes, too. I'd think this would be pretty obvious; I mean, nobody would support a userbox that read something like "This user thinks <insert ethnic group> are [[rape|really]] [[murder|nice]] [[evil|people]]". Would they? Shimeru 21:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

While you are at it and on this subject, User:TheKaplan has restored "Hezbollah = Murder Incorporated" after removal as per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive73#User:Embargo

I have aksed him to remove it. It appears as though his intentions of having it there are to Make a point per this quote ("And I probably would have cleaned this one out with all the other superfluous ones, but since someone tried to remove it") located right above it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by Embargo's edit summary, reverting Chrislk02's removal of hostile material here : "Garbage..."??? that can't be civil at all. ThuranX 23:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you ok guys w/ the current version? Shall we move on or do you still have some things to say? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, as above. If there's a consensus that says supporting Hezbollah against Israeli "massacres" is okay (and that is what the current version says, although covertly), then fine -- but in that case, I fail to see why the "Hezbollah = Murder" userbox is any worse. Personally, I don't care for either side in the conflict, but I don't think we should allow one of these messages and not the other -- that would appear to be taking sides. If stating a political view in terms of "X is murdering people" is okay, both boxes are okay. If not, both are not. Shimeru 10:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, i've never supported any of the versions myself (see current and archived Embargo's user page). However, and after lenghty discussions at their talk page and at a previous ANI thread, there seemed that the issue has been resolved. Otherwise, i'll be supporting the immediate removal of all these userboxes which smell politics. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Laudable of you, but I think that misses the point. Politics isn't the problem; it's a smokescreen. The problem (if one exists) is couching political statements in terms of "murder" and "massacres". I think there's room for userboxes that state political views without demonizing any given political entity in that way. That said, if it's been settled, I'm not inclined to push. Neither of them offends me, particularly. Just wanted to point out that defending one of those boxes while attacking the other is a pot/kettle situation; they're more or less equivalent, for better or for worse. Shimeru 07:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Shomari15 (talk · contribs)

This user has been nothing but disruptive, vandalizing and uploading a large number of improperly tagged pictures, contributing to the huge backlog currently at WP:CSD. He only has a handful of useful contributions I can see. I'm going through his logs to delete his pictures, and I gave him a final warning, after considering blocking him indef on sight as a disruption-only account. (Just look at that talk page... And no blocks!) Please monitor this user and consider blocking indef if this continues... I really don't think it's worth our time trying to work with someone like this otherwise. In fact, I wouldn't mind if you did it now. Grandmasterka 02:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User reported at WP:AIV. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? I'm an administrator, I'm asking for review here. Grandmasterka 02:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry if I jumped the gun. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why wasn't (s)he given warnings for the vandalism edits? RJASE1 ^Talk 02:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmasterka did warn him, just above your warning. A warning isn't defined by coming from a template or having a Stop icon in it, you know :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:18Z

Shomari15 reminds me a lot of Blobba (talk · contribs) who I recently blocked for a week, who also has sockpuppets... but I see one subtle difference in MO which I won't mention here. This pattern of behavior seems to be not uncommon -- either that, or a long-term troll that's much smarter than he pretends to be. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:21Z

Looks like User:Grandmasterka had enough and blocked him indefinitely - should be able to close this report. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Known bigoted user subtly subverting Wikipedia again

Hi, I would like to bring to your notice the noxious effect the user User:Dbachmann is having on Wikipedia. This user is a known to hold deep-seated prejudices against Hindus and Indians. His run-ins with Indian Wikipedia editors are well known.

This time, this user has gone ahead and created three redirect pages that link to Indigenous Aryan Theory page. The titles of the pages are

Hindutva revisionism [6]

Hindutva pseudoscience [7]

Hindutva propaganda [8]

As any mature reader can see, terms like revisionism, pseudoscience and propaganda are inherently disapproving and dismissive in nature. They give out negative vibes about the value of a theory even when used in isolation. To understand the unease they give to an average Indian reader, please try to substitute “Hindutva” word with Jewish or Christian, and try to feel the impact. If Wikipedia does not have any page like Jewish propaganda or Christian propaganda, why bestow this honor on Hindus?

This user, who amazingly is also an admin, has a long and winding history of offending Indians, which includes hurling choicest expletives at them. I would be interested in knowing if Wikipedia has any ideas to rein in this person.

Sisodia 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean Dbachmann. IrishGuy ^talk 02:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

let's delete Cargo cult science and Category:Pseudoscience then. Can't have terms on Wikipedia that are "inherently disapproving". dab (𒁳) 07:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFD. If the user is behaving in a way that cannot be resolved through disucssion, open a WP:RFC. Jkelly 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I meant User:Dbachmann. I corrected the spelling.

Sisodia 02:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Those redirects are a bit curious. The article they point to currently has an interesting looking AFD. Your allegations are serious, though, and if you provided diffs, I'm sure they'd get looked at. Friday (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my accusations but I will spare you the diffs, because I am quite certain nothing is going to happen to him. This user is impervious to reason. Also, frequent leniency by the Wikipedia admins has emboldened him to a point where he fancies himself above the norms of civil language. Therefore I do not want to risk finding myself at the receiving end of his diatribes.

Please just ask him to delete these redirect pages. If I or any Indian editor tells him to do it, he won’t.

Sisodia 03:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking him simply because you say so is frivolous. If you are here to accuse us of negligence instead, then I suggest you review your own actions. We're trying to help you here, not to face a barrage of accusations, then have you whining that you're not getting your way because you're not cooperating. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not as if I am being uncooperative. I just did not want to scratch old wounds. But since you insist on proof, here is one as a sample

[[9]]

Here this user not only curses all Indians in general with deeply offensive abuses, he also grandly proclaims that “Wikipedia is not for them (i.e. Indians)”. What a revelation! One billion souls disenfranchised with a stroke of pen! Does this convince you that this user needs some attitude correction?

Sisodia 04:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably would be good to mention that there is a current RfC on Dbachmann (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann), a related AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Aryan Theory), and an ongoing mediation on Talk:Indigenous Aryan Theory. Just sayin'. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how this is an "incident", but I could certainly do with some admins backing up my eternal struggle with our resident propagandists. Help prevent Wikipedia from becoming a platform for national mysticism and shoddy pseudo-scholarship (um, more than it already is, that is). Look into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Aryan Theory and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Kazanas while you're at it. It will also be instructive to review block log and contribs of Sisodia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (was involved in an arbcom case within two weeks of his registring). [Yes, this is a call for you to get involved here. Don't leave me sitting in it for another two months, and then tsk me disapprovingly as you find me in the middle of a ring of screaming Indian patriots two monts from now] Thanks, dab (𒁳) 07:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how it's an incident either. The "one as a sample" diff (from 2005) is an old acquaintance, it's the same old everlasting diff that always gets trotted out and misread against Dbachmann by the resident propagandists. "Curses all Indians in general with deeply offensive abuses", "Wikipedia is not for them (i.e. Indians)" is a ludicruos reading of it. Dbachmann has explained many times to the determinedly reading-impaired what he's really saying there, so it's hard to assume any good faith on the part of Sisodia and his sampling, and his unwillingness to "scratch old wounds" (I can't believe I read that phrase). Dbachmann is an excellent admin and editor, and as he says, he has been left alone to deal with these problems and to be subjected to the kind of mob talk seen above—"noxious effects on Wikipedia", indeed. Dbachmann, I'm not sure what kind of involvement you're calling for, though. How can I get involved, short of going to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which hurts my soul ? Bishonen | talk 10:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

looking at AfD hurts your soul, Bish? :) well, I would appreciate a lot more admins keeping the notorious troublespots on their watchlists (viz., a, b, c, d, e, and much of Category:Hindutva), revert propagandistic additions, warn and block users for trolling talkpages, and look out for sock patterns (I am quite sure I various conversations I am having with borderline trolls are in fact with one and the same person, but if I take every new account to sockcheck, there will be a lot of negative results, too, so I'll look daft either way). I hadn't even seen that 2005 diff was being handed around again. It may be time to reconsider Dmcdevit's old indefban again, too. dab (𒁳) 12:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just one suggestion dab... if they're calling you things like a bigot, and you them some things equally unflattering, why not just deal with any of the other many matters here and stop with the confrontations? If your emotions are engaged on anything in these pages so far that you're willing to resort to intemperate language, it's a sure sign you need to let that page or pages be watched over by almost anyone else. Certainly counter name calling is over the top, never mind how provoked. At least yell for help here and get a few others involved. They simply don't pay us enough to act in any less measured manner. Save the emotion for the tasks that pay the rent, buys the new wheels, nice vacations, and puts the kids through good schools, not something that isn't going to change your retirement fund, save in negative ways. Best wishes, but letting that patrol go to someone else would be 'way overdue', from the looks of it. // FrankB 15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

with all due respect, "yell for help here and get a few others involved" is precisely what I am doing, right above your post. I am an editor in these topics, I'm not there as "uninvolved admin", but if you're going to write and guard the articles for me, I will thank you (I hope you have a background in historical linguistics, archaeology and ancient history, then). As for "intemperate language" or "name calling", I am always open to accept criticism in that field. Would you mind pointing me to any (post-2005, if possible, 2007) incidence you object to? As far as I am aware, I didn't even descend to reacting to the "bigoted". As for "paying the rent", you will be surprised to learn my "real job" as well as my "real life" is taking place off-wiki. dab (𒁳) 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the person who raised the RfC aginst DBachmann. I was forced into this action because Dab refuses to be reasonable. One mediation effort failed last month (because of him). Dab refuses to participate in another mediation effort currently ongoing. The reason for RfC is that Dab has no respect for WP:ATT, he is publishing original research on Wikipedia. Removes OR tag or Fact tags without providing citations and in last 4 months I have yet to see a single citation from him that checks out. What he quotes in Wikipedia is different from what citied material says. If anyone has views different from him, they automatically get hate labels. He uses derogatory terms for published authors[[10]]. He starts edit warring and then uses his admin power to block users in content dispute. All relevent details are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann.

My question to other admin is that does Dbachmann have exemption from following basic policies like WP:ATT.Sbhushan 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason that 2005 diff is still doing the rounds is that the last known position of Bachmann on the issue was that he “does not see any need to apologize”. Otherwise I would have buried the matter long ago.

Anyway, forget that incidence. The matter that is getting sidestepped in this din is that why do there exist article titles like “Hindutva pseudoscience” and “Hindutva propaganda”, when no such articles exist for any other faith. Is it fair standard for an encyclopedia? Is it fair behavior for an admin? And lastly but not least, are you sure it does not violate any anti-discrimination or anti-racial laws of every country which accesses Wikipedia? I think the matter is more serious than most people are thinking it to be.

Sisodia 18:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann is opened, that is a more appropriate venue for you concerns than here. It will be given the attention it deserves. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I added my grievances (rants if you please) in that RFC. Let’s see if Wikipedia deletes these redirects pages or not. I just wanted to point out the fact in Europe, people can be, and have been jailed for calling Holocaust a Jewish propaganda. It is the issue of equal treatment of all religions/ethnicities. If Mr. Bachmann has to offend people, at least let him be equal opportunity offender. Sisodia 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion? This is the proper venue to object to redirects, the RFC is more about the users behavior. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:geg

user:Geg

• 1.Possible sockpuppet. (not sure.)
• 2.Small wikistalking
• 3.Harassment.
• 4.Removing my comments on talk pages for no reason.
• 5.Removing a section in Kingdom hearts II for no apparent reason.

Both him/her and user:Apostrophe have been a pain in the butt for me lately. Could there please be a small block? Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Diffs or it didn't happen. JuJube 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Look at this diff for a lovely comment he made to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_Hearts_II&diff=113227430&oldid=113227046 Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• That does run afoul of WP:CIVIL. However, there's no context of this so-called "sockpuppetry" and "harassment", and that section is pretty needless. JuJube 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On Sockpuppetry- Geg seems to act similar to Apostrophe, both harass me, both edit the same pages pretty much. Harassment- Both keep rverting edits of mine for no apparent reason, and will remove my comments on their talk pages, claiming i am vandalising it. (see their talk pages.)Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: The section has a fair amount of trivia, and they dont even explain to me why. They just harass me while reerting the edits most of the time. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC),

• Geg and I both edit Zatch Bell articles. I guess he's my sockpuppet, too. And by the way, there's nothing wrong with removing comments from talk pages. JuJube 03:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if we're allowed to post here but... Apostrophe and I are not sockpuppets; we just have the same editing tendencies. This whole thing stends from something that InvaderSora starting trying to add to the article [[Kingdom Hearts II] a while ago that Apostrophe and I and a few other users such as User:Urutapu, User:Axem Titanium, and User:Ryulong would revert due to it being irrelevent. InvaderSora has actually been blocked for it a few times due to 3RR and WP:CIVIL, though for some reason his block log is empty now. And the above comment is just due to my frustration and disbelief that someone would want to add something something like this to the article despite the overwhelming consensus that it should not be added. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also.. "And by the way, there's nothing wrong with removing comments from talk pages." Well, yeah there is, but not when it's obviously just him being smart by trying to act like one of the "Welcome to Wikipedia" guys. Also, I apologize to the admins for how immature this whole thing looks. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Because i changed my name. And i stopped putting it under Trivia with other notable trivia things. Just because you and your little group dont like it doesnt mean it is irrelivent. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Anyway, this sounds like a content dispute. InvaderSora, have you tried using the article talk page? This isn't a matter for the admin noticeboard, no matter how much you think they should be blocked. JuJube 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

About the trivia, most Wikipedia guidelines like WP:TRIV discourage the use of trivia sections in articles, especially for something this unnotable. But yes, this is definitely a content dispute, and as far as I can tell he hasn't tried using the article's talk page. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For one, you're not an admin, so i'm sorry, but i'll have to ask you to stay out of it. Two, regardless of editing, he has been harassing me, and that's worth a block. Also, Apostrophe seems to often wikistalk me. Proof? He's reverted my edits at pages hes never edited before. The Trivia has more notable stuff to back it up. And i dont use the talk page, because nobody is going to care. Why should i be discussing it ont he talk page if you already remove my comments from talk pages for no reason? Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, diffs or it didn't happen. User talk pages are different from article talk pages. JuJube 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Err... what? -- ReyBrujo 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet the behavior will likely be the same. See Apostrophe and Geg's talk pages for the diffs. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I wasn't harrassing you until that one time when you kept provoking me. Simply reverting your bad edits isn't "harrassment". And yeah, I did check your contributions to see what other articles you may have edited with that stuff, but "Wikistalking" is defined as "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." I never had the intention of causing annoyance or distress to you, despite the amount you're causing me.

And like I said, I removed your comments from my talk page because of your sarcastic attitude about it. If you had left a normal message I would have complied. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC

I was NOT being sarcastic. If you think the edits are bad, then IMPROVE THEM! Apostrophe is wikistalking me, though. Can i have some fishy crackers? 04:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If people speak harshly towards you when you engage in disruptive hehaviour, don't do that, then! Uncivil comments have been made towards you by Geg[11] and Apostrophe[12]. This is true and is to be discouraged, but understand that this behavior was provoked through quantitatively worse behaviour on your part. As stated to you previously, administrator intervention is not meant as a punishment, but as an attempt to control or correct undesired behaviour. Administrative action is not required to prevent future incivility towards you from Geg and Apostrophe; the quickest method is simply to correct your own behaviour. –Gunslinger47 04:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WORSE BEHAVIOR? SHOW ME PLEASE...Can i have some fishy crackers? 04:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me get a link... oh yeah HERE :P JuJube 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring alone against concensus over fruit box packaging.

1. (no summary)
2. It is true, at least the fruit snack one.
3. (no summary)
4. (no summary)
5. You know what? leave me alone. I have plenty of proof that this is happening. Get off my back.
6. -sigh- You obviosuly aren't seeing the image.
7. (APOLOGIES FOR 3RR.. THIS GUY KEEPS MESSING IT UP) Source=Image. yes, it is notable. I will report you to an admin if you continue.
8. how so?
9. (no summary)
10. THERE. happy? let's at least mention it. (possible typos)
11. rv
12. and..?
13. RV. Want to get BLOCKED for HARASSMENT again? LEAVE ME ALONE NOW.
14. rv pointless removal.
15. rv- NOT pointless..

Note that multiple people were against you, all explaining that they believed your trivia to be unnotable. –Gunslinger47 06:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So if a whole bunch of people go to say, the Invader Zim article, and say "It's unnotable thats its canceled!1", they get their way? Yruly, especially with more stuff to back it up, it is not pointless. I would like Geg and Apostrophe blocked please... Can i have some fishy crackers? 15:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll like to point out that this isn't the first time InvaderSora has done this. This is the third time, actually. Admins, please do something about this. A warning. Anything. I'm getting quite tired of Invader's antics and I'll like us all to get back to our lives. ' 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would stop reporting if you'd stop HARSSING ME.. I haven't done anything lately against the rules. I am getting tired of being harassed and will not stop untill you guys get blocked or you gutys stop. Ok? Can i have some fishy crackers? 01:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"I […] will not stop untill you guys get blocked or you gutys stop."

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. In a nutshell: If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked. –Gunslinger47 04:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Ethnic Cleansing

Resolved

Khoikhoi is continually removing any reference to the term "Bosnian Muslim" on the Ethnic Cleansing article, and is also trying to reword it in a POV manner at Bosniaks. I have provided 3 respected sources that show "Bosnian Muslim" is commonly used in the English speaking world, and it is in no way offensive to Bosniaks. Please someone help.

Also, I noticed that after I reverted Bosniaks, a user called Kraf001 reverted to the POV version - his first edit since 11 November 2006, which is almost 4 months ago. Coincidence? Former Anon 06:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the Complaint Department. You've aleady got this in Dispute Resolution, leave it there. --InShaneee 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to a legal complaint form

I don't know if this edit on Talk:Ejaculation by Infofreak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) constitutes a legal threat, but the user ends his/her post with an external link to a page on the Florida Attorney General website that contains a printable legal complaint form. I suppose at least the link should be removed as it seems to encourage filing legal charges, but I'm bringing this here for further review. Prolog 09:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a huge misunderstanding on the standpoint of Wikipedia and censorship. I've heard that Jimbo himself can put hardcore pornography on the Main Page and it would still be legal. It's not a nice thing to say because I think it does scare people who don't understand Wikipedia's stance in law. I would remove the comment. x42bn6 Talk 13:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a borderline legal threat. I'm not going to block the maker because I don't think it's a call to imminent legal action, but I will remove the talk page message and warn him/her. If it happens again, the user should be blocked, imo. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored the talk page comment before I was aware of this ANI thread. I don't see the comment as a legal threat. I see it as an argument that Wikipedia is on shaky ground by hosting certain types of images whithout following US law on things like age checks. Warning us about what the user perceives (rightly or wrongly) to be the natural consequence of our actions is a good thing, it is not a threat.

The user does not say they are filing legal action and they don't ask anyone else to do so. I think if they wanted to file a legal action they would just do it. If linking to the external form is a deemed inappropriate, then I suggest that just that part of the comment should be removed. Johntex\^talk 15:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This isn't a mere notification of what the law says (which I agree would be appropriate), it is an invitation to legal action. WP:NLT doesn't require a legal threat to be specific. The user is inviting an unnamed "someone" to take a legal action against Wikimedia. The user is not posting a reference to a law in furtherance of his or her position on the matter, but merely stating that if someone files a complaint with the FL atty general, Wikipedia will be screwed. This clearly falls outside the accepted form of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. Most importantly, it functions to chill vigorous talk page debate on the subject by implying that a legal complaint could be filed if the image remains. This isn't a call to imminent legal action (which isn't a criterion at WP:NLT, by the way), but is functionally a threat against Wikimedia. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As Jersyko mentions above, this particular comment seems to assist in the process of filing a legal charge, and invite readers/Wikipedians to do it. I support the removal of the entire comment, as nothing stops this user, or anybody else, to comment on this issue in a non-threatening way. Prolog 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT requires a threat to be a threat. Saying "someone could..." is not a threat to do anything. Johntex\^talk 16:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But this isn’t saying ‘someone could’. This is ‘someone could, here’s how and where, and this might happen unless my position in this content debate is accepted as the correct one… Nice place you have here. Shame if something was to happen to it, eh?’ —xyzzy_n 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"It's a nice encyclopedia you've got there. It would be a shame if someone tried to sic the Florida attorney general's office on it." Er, sounds kind of threatening, especially since the editor is using the warning to try to force a particular outcome to a content dispute. Even though I agree with the editor about the utility of the image in that article, he's going about it the wrong way. We're not designed or equipped to handle questions of law on article talk pages. Legal concerns need to go through Brad and the Foundation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Users are not playing nice

User:Chuck0 has been warned for writing personal attacks on various talk pages including his own talk page done in association with the revert and edit wars between User:Chuck0 and User:Anarcho-capitalism in the Anarchism in the United States and Social anarchism articles, waged on the claim from User:Chuck0 that anarcho-capitalism isn't a form of anarchism argumented by the counter claim from User:Anarcho-capitalism that it is a form of anarchy.

Furthermore the above is a mere incident in a greater whole. Endless philosophical debates that doesn't present any new arguments are being written all over the anarchy related talk pages regarding the disagreement whether or not anarcho-capitalism are to be represented among anarchy related articles based on viewpoints from various users debating such in articles like Talk:Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, Talk:Anarchism and Portal talk:Anarchism addition to the above.

It has from what I can distinguish become a sitution with no ending in sight, making every anarchy page on wikipedia a battlefield between people of either the viewpoint that anarcho-capitalism is an anarchy and should be presented on various appropiate anarchy articles or those who don't think it is an anarchy and it shouldn't be represented on anarchy articles. Many people including me has become involved in this battle of what can probably be seen as POV pushing from both sides because of the obvious bias. People can not let go of the strong emotions that politics in the same way religion brings forward and which have become a problem for further editing articles.

I am seeking help to resolve this situation by maybe an administrator could perhaps arbitrary decide on how to further develope the articles in the upcomming future. Lord Metroid 12:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like it needs a sack of fact taggings and some related trimming when it fails WP:V, by a crew of nursemaids. Anyone have time for an edit war? But seriously, maybe posting a request for additional help on WP:AMA or WP:MEDCAB will draw some additional talent. The more outsiders that weigh in, the faster the flames will get damped out. // FrankB 15:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar and his socks

Hkelkar (talk · contribs) has been banned by the arbitration committee for a period of 1 year. But he has been disrupting wikipedia ever since. He came back as Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs) and later as Lionheart5 (talk · contribs). I was able to identify both these socks and block them. Lately Hkelkar has taken to editing anonymously. See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Hkelkar. I have got most of the pages he used to edit on my watchlist. All his edits are of the same type - reverting articles to his own POV. But I cannot continue watching literally hundreds of articles and block IPs everyday. Is it possible under wikipedia rules and legal under US laws to contact his ISP and/or University and inform them of his disruption? - Aksi_great (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Several of the IPs are from the University of Texas. Their network admins can be contacted regarding the abuse. --Ragib 13:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I might add, Hkelkar had his computer privileges revoked for 2 weeks at the University of Texas. He got an entire class blocked. I only know about it because I tried to edit some articles, and there was some block message with an "X" sign.

Some people at the University of Texas know his real name, but I can't give it out (for obvious reasons).

I know this seems a bit odd, a new user editing this page, but I did try and edit as an anon, but couldn't.

Any problems, just contact the University of Texas's technical department at abuse@utexas.edu and they will try to resolve it. Just be aware, there's no official policy on students editing Wikipedia.

As regards ISP complaints, well, don't go there. Legal minefield, so I'm told by a friend who does computer studies.

Well, there you go. Explanation given. --Trudiruddsen 13:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the info. I will contact the abuse department soon to inform them of his disruption of wikipedia. I am sure I know his name too, but have not revealed it yet on wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee too is aware of his real name. You must have been blocked from editing as many IPs used by Hkelkar have been blocked due to his ban evasion. Also, I do think it odd for you to have edited this page as your first edit. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, what of the socks of Sundaram7 (talk · contribs), BhaiSaab (talk · contribs), TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs), and His excellency (talk · contribs). If you smell Hkelkar, one of these users is not far away.Bakaman 01:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are suspicious, you are free to start your own thread on this page, or make a request at RFCU, or list your request at the ArbCom enforcement page. IMO Hkelkar has caused more trouble than BhaiSaab and Terry after the ArbCom case by not accepting the decision of the ArbCom and by not getting the message that his style of editing and POV pushing is not wanted here. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just a note that I have contacted the abuse department at the university. I have received a reply asking for more evidence, diffs, timestamps and other info. I have given them the information. At present, I am hopeful that they will do something about this. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm accused of abusing my admin powers

This is really a content dispute, but Rogue_Gremlin (talk · contribs) has accused me of abusing my admin powers here, here, here, here and here. I do not believe that I have used any admin powers at all in editing Burt Reynolds, Talk:Burt Reynolds or User talk:Dalbury, let alone abuse them, but I always welcome a third opinion. -- Donald Albury 14:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The complaint that you're abusing admin rights seems to come from the misunderstanding that being an admin means you get to dictate the result of content disputes. However, the main thrust of the complaint is not that you abused your admin tools, but you abused the editor tools, and thus shouldn't be an admin anymore. -Amarkov moo! 14:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And that complaint seems to be unfounded; you've only edited the article twice, and most of the unsourced information was not added by you. -Amarkov moo! 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This appears to just be bluster. I certainly saw no malicious edits or abuse of admin powers in your logs. --Ginkgo100^talk 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto...nothing to see here at all...kudos for Dalbury bringing it here to have others examine these accusations...which are obviously unfounded.--MONGO 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell him to file a user conduct rfc if he really believes what he's saying (after all, abuse of admin power is a serious allegation). You'll obviously be vindicated if he goes through with it and it should be a nice ego boost, or at least confirmation of your good work here. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Of late, this appears to be the first thing that people shout - "ADMIN ABUSE!!!!" - whenever they don't understand what has happened, don't like a consensus, don't like a contribution, don't like a contributor, etc. If just 1% of these types of accusations were real, we'd be in trouble. But not even 1% are (more like 0.0001%) and the noise-to-signal ratio means we'd have trouble spotting an admin gone really rouge even if it did happen. I've lost count of how many times I've been accused of it - several before I got the mop and one about 15 minutes after I got it ... downhill from there. Worth your while to ignore this one, Donald, really. 〈REDVEЯS〉 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was accused of something like this just yesterday. --Ginkgo100^talk 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, this is a content dispute, and I have invited Rogue Gremlin to seek a third opinion or informal mediation, but his claims of abuse of power on my part does not establish a good basis for seeking a solution. -- Donald Albury 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, editors who cry "admin abuse" and "censorship" are often the problem editors, not the admin in question. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I Don't Want My Account Deleted Updated

• One of the below contributers keeps adding a Bananarama hits song chart under the Careless Whisper article;even tho the song was made by the artist Wham.Bananarama's hit list does not belong under a song made by another artist!It belongs under the Bananarama article.You can't add a song hits chart for every artist that covered this song especialy sense all the artists that covered the song have links to their own articles, (including Bananarama).It would be distracting from the article,as it would take up more space than the article itself,and thus be a disservice,and pointless!I keep tryin to tell them this but everytime I erase it,he/she adds it back on.Then after I erased it a few times,he/she has the gul to write this secret messege in the article for me:

NOTE:

Please DO NOT REMOVE ANY OF THE BELOW LINES.

Removing them will be considered VANDALISM and your changes will be undone.

Persistent removal of the below lines may cause you not to be able to edit this page.

Thank you for reading.

Like I am the vandal?Regardless of this,the side bar of information,on the right side of the article (I don't know what the technical term for it is,I'm new to this)has a special box just for Bananarama,as if they wrote the song.This is favortism,and it's not allowed in an encylopedia.One of these persons is obviously a Bananarama fan.I am not able to remove this side bar of Bananarama info.An adminstrator or someone with more power needs to check out the editing history (where I got these names from) and do something 'bout this.Warn the user who is doing this,or lock the article,something,please!!!!

• 75.110.78.24
• 68.237.1.23
• 75.84.216.180
• 65.7.83.48
• Coredesat
• 193.52.234.176
• 207.69.139.7
• SmackBot
• Flyingtoaster1337

Natthegreat 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• We almost never delete accounts. I've checked the article Careless Whisper and the Bananarama official website, and they did indeed release a cover of it in 2001. So the box seems to make some sense. Can you list for us, briefly, what you would like correcting? Thanks! 〈REDVEЯS〉 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• You may want to click the "discussion" link at the top of the article and discuss the issue there. If you go to WP:RFC, and follow the instructions there for article disputes, you can ask for others who have an interest in that topic to offer assistance. You really don't need an administrator - you need someone who knows about music. --BigDT 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this is what appears to be a new user being freaked out by a user who doesn't know how to use the the talk page them selves. And I dont think the issue is about the inclusion of the info box so much. For the record, I feel that User:Natthegreat is correct. The info box should just contain the first recording artist, Otherwise the page would just be full of info boxes. I'll keep a watch on the page and help them out if needed. Munta 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly not sure what this has to do with me, all I did was remove a redlink on Careless Whisper. --Coredesat 22:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup help requested

Resolved

On March 4th and 5th, User:Gwern appears to have created hundreds of non-functional redirects. I found them because they today flooded the Short pages list (Parsed version). The short pages software did not recognize them as proper redirects, so they all dropped onto the list. Several issues that I see:

1. Do we even want to keep several hundred different capitalizations of "A Long Time Ago, In A Galaxy Far, far Away..." redirects. A couple of others were done as well.
2. They are non-functional. Some just need a space before the first "[", others need whatever is there (before the first "[")converted to a true space. If they are to be kept, it is a non-trivial fix-it job to clean them up and make them functional.
3. Does Gwern have permission to run a bot like this? And in his own main user account?

Anyway, I'm putting this here because if the answer to #1 is no, we need more admins than me deleting these things. After fixing a couple of dozen of the non-functional ones myself, and realizing that there are hundreds more to fix, I decided I needed help of some sort.

And I'm *not* looking for a block of User:Gwern at this point. His "bot" has not been running for a couple of days. He may need a warning, especially if the bot is unauthorized, though there is already discussion on his talk from people generally concerned over the flood. But there is at the moment no immenent reason to block him. - TexasAndroid 15:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there is only one article named "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" and there aren't 50 different variations with different capitalization, the go/search box will work, no matter what you type, right? For example, we have Virginia Tech Hokies. If I type "VIRGINIA TECH HOKIES", "vIrGinIA tECH HoKIES", or any other capitalization into the box, all of those send me to Virginia Tech Hokies. So having redirects from all of these alternate capitalizations is useless. --BigDT 15:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

His concern seems to be that linking isn't as smart as the go box, but, well... users should check when adding links. Maybe something on submit that will check any new redlinks for "go box results" for that text and suggest them would be useful. --Random832 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, redirects from every conceivable alternate capitalization is a maintenance nightmare. The risk of someone accidentally leaving a redlink to an incorrect capitalization is less than the risk of these alternate capitalizations being vandalized becaus nobody is paying attention to them. Unless it's a prominent alternate capitalization (2006-07 NCAA Division I Men's basketball season vs the correct 2006-07 NCAA Division I men's basketball season), I don't think there's a reason to have them there. And even if it is prominent ... there's no real need for it - anyone adding the link will see it is a redlink and fix it. If they don't, someone else will. --BigDT 16:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed these due to a large number of them appearing at the top of Special:Uncategorizedpages. As he seems to have stopped, I don't think any immediate admin action is required, but in short yes, these are/were:

• broken, due to a missing space,
• unnecessary, for the reasons discussed above,
• liable to create ridiculous bloat if done for any significant proportion of all articles (increasing the number of pages in the main space by a significant multiple -- probably something on the order of 10 million redirects, depending on the distribution of length in words of article names),
• made with an unapproved bot (see WP:BRFA, not to say the lack of an explicit consensus anywhere to do this),
• inappropriately made from his main account,
• done at "bot-like speed", which an account not flagged as a bot really shouldn't ever do, even if approved to do the particular task.

(See WP:BOT on those last two.) If there's general agreement to delete these, I'll be happy to help out; if that's not entirely clear at this point, one might raise it at WP:RFD. Alai 17:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(To which add, "creating what would be double-redirects, were they working redirects at all". e.g. at !Kora Language. Alai 17:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Ok. Thinking more about how to handle this. The following are suggestions:

1. We begin to clean out (delete) the bulk of these redirects that were bot-created on the 4th and 5th. At current they are an unapproved, non-functional, bot-created mess, clogging up at least a couple of important tracking pages.
2. Gwern is asked to first get consensous of the very idea of this type of massive redirect. Not sure where he should be directed to for such a discussion, but it's definitely not appropriate for AN/I. (Note that I FYIed him on this debate, so I'm hoping he'll drop in here at some point. He appears to mostly edit in the evening, US time.)
3. Direct Gwern to the bot approval process, and asked to follow it before he launches the bot again. He *really* should not be testing a bot in his user-space without any sort of authorization.

Note that in all of this I am totally WP:AGF about Gwern. I have no reason at all to think this was anything other than good intentioned. But it really, really needs to go through several more steps before anything like this is repeated. - TexasAndroid 17:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My preference would be 1. 'agree to give up on the whole idea', and 2. delete the existing instances. But he might want to press ahead with it, and if so, then as you say, he should take some sort of soundings about this (I can only think of Wikipedia talk:Redirect and WT:RFD, but I'm open to suggestions on a better location), and if that's at all favourable to the idea, go ahead with a bot approval request. Clearing them out before he's had a chance to chime in here might look a bit hasty, if he's determined to go ahead with the idea (heaven forfend), whereas if he has no objection, all'll be well. It should be said that some sort of unapproved 'testing' in the mainspace is more or less custom and practice, but not dozens or hundreds of such edits, at full-bot-speed, and only if closely manually supervised. (Making the same mistake twice in a row isn't a good sign of appropriate "testing", much less 30 times in a minute.) Alai 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He appears to have resumed making up to 15 (automated, unapproved and unflagged) edits per minute, though seemingly at present just fixing some of the broken redirects created last time: [13]. Alai 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assured it's just massive use of tabbed browsing, so never mind. Alai 05:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This one appears mostly resolved for now. User:Centrx cleared out the bulk of the bad redirects yesterday, so they are gone. So unless Gwern decides to fire up his bot again, I think this one is settled. - TexasAndroid 15:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Tenis4kr (talk · contribs)

Dear Wikipedia,

I accidentally added my URL to the bottom of the links list on many horse related sites. I did not know that this was illegal. All of these were done on the same day so I did not recieve a warning message from you until I had posted all of these. I have stopped since I recived the first message (as a result I ask that my site please not be placed on the blacklist) I am realy writing because I have recieved a nasty email from one of your users that was absolutely uncalled for. I understand that someone might be upset about what happened but there is no reason to call someone a "dumbass". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenis4kr (talk • contribs)

Don't do it again and I think you have nothing to fear. And please accept my personal apology for that other person's bad behaviour. --BenBurch 17:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Owie123 (talk · contribs)

This user has just recreated the same cross-namespace page to his user page for the eighth ninth time. He has been repeatedly warned (he's deleted all the warnings). I'm on my way to work, I think this warrants a short block or an incredibly stern warning. John Reaves (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the redirect against recreation, I reckon that enough action. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Please note that this user 20th edit was a RfA self-nomination. The rest of the edits have all been user namespace-based edits. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice this user is still blanking their talk page, though they have created a partial archive of sorts (User talk:Owie123/descution1). But lots of editors-in-supposedly-good-standing do similar things with their pages, so further action on that score probably isn't warranted (annoying as it is). Alai 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Southphilly

The dispute on WP:AWARDS finally ended last night when an admin stepped in (thank you) and removed the coordinator section and voting restrictions that southphilly and evrik insisted on against consensus. We've got some good stuff going on over there now, with some really helpful new users in. Anyone else wanting to sign up would be welcome.

Unfortunately South Philly (talk · contribs) has taken up personally attacking me here, here, and somewhat subtly here. Apparently, in an accusation which Southphilly has also accused me of in the previous AN/I above, I "control" the project. I don't know what Southphilly's definition of control is, but I invite anyone to review the page, as I seriously doubt his claims. I am getting tired of Southphilly's bitter accusations and vindictive actions and ask that he be warned and/or blocked for his disruptive behaviour (he has also MfDed the entire Awards project because, ironically, he claims it "is too bureaucratic".) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Applying the "glass is half full" take on this, one might discern a temporal progression from "personal attack" to "subtle criticism". Either way, I don't think this requires admin action at this point. I'd suggest waiting a while, and if it resumes, taking the matter up at, say, WP:WQA, or requesting mediation. Let's hope there's no further outright disruption, at least. Alai 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just closed the MfD as a keep here. I'm going to sleep (way to avoid conflict for a few hours). If anyone wants to overturn and open, don't wait for my return. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think South Philly was making a point with the {{afd}}, however those three cited edits were in no way personal attacks. First, after arguing with you thuglas did leave the WikiProject, and then left wikipedia citing you as a reason. Second, this is your third post to this noticeboard in less than a week, in my opinion you create a lot of drama and rely on WP:BOLD alot, but not as much on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Finally, people who say that other users exhibit in pathological hatred and appear to relish humiliating them should not throw so many stones. --evrik ^(talk) 19:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Drama" I would much rather have avoided - you're the one who insisted on your shiny Coordinator badge and straw polls for every edit. Resolving disputes would have been a waste of time given an administrator had to reprimand you both before you stopped. Thuglas left because of that edit war, you take as much blame as I. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• So, now you're resorting to ad hominem attacks? Attacking me does not refute the facts, let me quote, "Im pretty sure i would have drop kicked Dev by this point - unfortunately the internet doesnt let me do that so i decided just to quit before i get any more mad. ." --evrik ^(talk) 20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's any good faith here left to assume, or civility to share, can we please do so, or take this elsewhere -- like dispute resolution, as suggested above? Alai 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally would like to get on with editing the Wikipedia. South Philly and evrik seem to want to argue til the cows come home, and then send away the cows because there's no consensus on them coming home. Evrik, I am trying to work with you on WP:AWARDS, such as that Service awards thing, but your endless sniping is making it difficult. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I stopped editing for a long time because of the way people treat each other here. I am angered by Dev920's blatant abuse of the system (who the f--- files three notices at the ANI in a week?), and her power grab. Evrik worked long and fairly to make sure that the system was working and repeatedly asked for everyone's help. After the dust settles, I am contemplating leaving Wikipedia for good because of Dev920.

This should have been mediated long before it was brought to the administrators. I've now been mentioned three times at the ANI this week by Dev920 - and I don't think it's fair. --South Philly 13:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if Southphilly would stop being so abusive I wouldn't have to keep coming here. Note that this is brought up every single day at the same time - when southphilly starts editing. I am genuinely confused about southphilly's accusation that I am grabbing power: what fucking power? How is contributing to a wikiproject controlling it? Seriously, what the hell is he talking about? I haven't removed anyone's messages, I haven't, significantly, started a revert war with anyone because I want my own way, I have no idea why southphilly insists on posting such accusations about me here, on the project page and now on Alai's page. It's insane. Southphilly posted a personal attack against me on WT:AWARDS claiming I had ousted evrik from the project and had "taken over" when evrik is still posting on the page. Given my only experience with South philly has been to observe his endless attempts to get his own way against all reason and opposition, I can only think when he leaves Wikipedia will be better for it. I am going to get on with my work now, and I hope Southphilly will see the sense of quitting before he makes himself looks even more irrational. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet problem: User:StudyAndBeWise User:170.215.40.207

This user, a sockpuppet of an indefbanned user, reported by Orangemarlin at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd), ended his recent career with a lengthy series of attacks on me. (See pretty much every contribution on Special:Contributions/170.215.40.207) User:Akhilleus encouraged me to make a request for something to be done, and pointed out he has made a request for judgement at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive211#self-identifying_sockpuppets.2C_block_requested. However, while I would like this sorted, I am in no position to be able to claim I could act neutrally, and must ask others to do so. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nnatan (talk · contribs)

Resolved

It appears that User:Nnatan, operating from an IP address (that is, not logged in), has made a legal threat with reference to the article Solomon's Temple. - Jmabel | Talk 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I gave them a warning (on both the IP talk page and user talk page) regarding the edits to the talk page insinuating legal threats.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia recruiting

Resolved

How do we feel about User:Regional123, who created an account yesterday for the sole purpose of soliciting Wikipedia admins to join Conservapedia? See Regional123's contribs. NawlinWiki 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally would endorse an indef block for such an SPA. However, its best to hear what others say first.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would treat it like any spam(in other words what Persian Poet Gal said). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Shoot 'em spammers. Yuser31415 20:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked by A Man In Black.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Darn. I think it would be useful for them to recruit editors to write articles like Pierce Butler, which state as fact, "Pierce Butler (1866-1939) was perhaps the finest Supreme Justice ever." They don't even have an article about Minnesota, so I wonder how budding young conservatives will learn about the state. Maybe it's just flyover country. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Different project, different rules and priorities. No sense sniping. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Conservapedia, may want to keep an eye on Davey138 (talk · contribs) - just registered and made these kinds of edits. MastCell 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unauthorized bot

Resolved

RJASE1 passes the Turing test and is apparently a flesh-and-blood human. Link (ir)relevance issues should rather be discussed more directly. Миша13 21:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that User:RJASE1 is an unauthorized bot. Look how fast he does dozens of edits, all with the same edit summary (which I believe is false, nowhere is there a centralized list of banned URLS per WP:EL.)[14] Nardman1 20:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He's not. Shadow1 (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Then he should be blocked for vandalism. Not only are the edit summaries unhelpful, but he's using some kind of unapproved centralized list to remove links. Turns out some other users are as well, including User:Betacommand. Nardman1 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Making mass edits without discussing them goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Nardman1 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing bulk spam edits doesn't require discussion. IrishGuy ^talk 20:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He is just removing links, he isn't a bot. The summary doesn't allude to a centralized list of URLs but instead is pointing out which URL he removed and his reasoning (WP:EL violation). All the links he is removing are from the same domain hence the summary being identical for each edit. IrishGuy ^talk 20:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at the links he's removing to see if they were inappropriate links before accusing him of vandalism? He's removing 2 or 3 a minute. Not an unrealistic rate at all. Leebo ^T/C 20:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some of them might be inappropriate, but mexicanfood.about.com isn't a spam link, and when I asked Betacommand about why he removed it, his answer was rather vague. [15]. If they are going to call other people's hard work spam and then remove it from the Encyclopedia I think it's fair I have access to discuss the link list they're using. Nardman1 21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The link to mexicanfood.about.com is not necessary in the Aguas frescas article. Even if you dislike the word "spam" it's not necessary in the article and doesn't meet WP:EL. It's perfectly understandable for it to be removed. Leebo ^T/C 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There you go about it. WP:EL DOES NOT BAN THIS LINK. Instead of insisting it does, why not explain why it does? User:Beetstra's answer to this question is similarly unhelpful [16] Nardman1 21:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was rather helpful. RJASE1 was just doing some external link cleanup, it's not like it's a radically new process on Wikipedia that requires approval from Jimbo. Shadow1 (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL sets standards for external links; the onus is on the person adding the link to show that it meets the requirements of WP:EL, not on the person deleting it to show that WP:EL BANS IT (to borrow your phrasing). WP:EL is quite clear in its criteria for a good external link. At any rate, mass addition of an external link, even if it appears to satisfy WP:EL, is not allowed by WP:SPAM. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I would say that he is using a monobook script that GeorgeMoney wrote to do mass removals of inappropriate links. I've used it myself on occasion; I don't have the URL handy at the moment. Removing links isn't vandalism, it's more janitorial work than anything else. Shadow1 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely report that I am not a bot - I was removing mass links to this particular website (doing janitorial work, as Irishguy says). I fully believe that what I was doing was in compliance with WP:EL - the links seemed to me to be promoting this particular site and added nothing beyond what the articles would include if they became featured articles. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So you admit there's a central list of links to be removed. Such obscurity is unhelpful to a free encyclopedia. Nardman1 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say anything like that? Where are you getting that, and why are you being confrontational at the same time? Leebo ^T/C 21:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I saw the link being added in the RSS feed and then searched web links for articles linked to this site. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a central list of links to be WATCHED, that's what the linkwatcherbots do, and then forward it to a channel, so we can review it. There is also a list of bad sites that are reverted on sight by a bot, but it is a very exclusive list - example.com and such. The bot only watches NS0 and only reverts once before referring it to a human. This isn't a cabal, and it isn't a conspiracy. Assume Good Faith without compelling evidence to the contrary. ST47Talk 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts; conform RJASE1)The link mexicanfood.about.com was added by user:mexicanfood (example addition). Upon reverting I encountered a number of linkfarms containing links to recipes. Per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY (not a linkfarm) and WP:EL (external links should be kept to a minimum) they were removed. As a further explanation; I believe that the information can be incorporated into wikibooks (using {{cookbook}} here), which makes all these links to recipes unnecessary. Moreover, WP:EL gives the possibility to link to a linkfarm ({{dmoz}}), which would in this case be better (unbiased; a google search on Aquas frescas gives 536,000 hits). In case you were wondering what list we were working from, see here. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I even tried to advise the user here but they went back to adding links - that and the name convinced me it was a spammer. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That link posted by Beetstra only had one entry and that link had highly unpleasant levels of advertising so I removed it. I guess that means they have all been nuked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess also for the record, about the speed of edits and the assertion that he is a bot. 3 to 4 edits per minutes is not too difficult to do. I have done that pretty easy manually doing vandalism patrol (before I got popups or stuff like that). with popups or other tools, it becomes even easier to edit that rapidly. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned User:Mike Church returns as User:PWnsivander the Great

I've blocked User:PWnsivander the Great as an obvious reincarnation of User:Mike Church, who was banned for long-term sneaky vandalism. Most obviously, he blanked a page meant to keep track of his sockpuppets. Other clues include his use of the word "pwn" and his obsession with "prestige". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:JJonathan and socks at Talk:Kylie Minogue

• JJonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Socks:

• 209.247.5.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.215.27.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 209.244.43.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Jonathannew7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

One user, using three anonymous and two named accounts. Repeated and persistent deletion of talk page discussion on Talk:Kylie Minogue#Category cleanup over the past two months. A partial list of diffs: [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]

Has been blocked twice for 24 hours already and once for a week, but keeps on deleting using either one of the non-blocked accounts, in true whack-a-mole style. Has been asked to participate in the discussion instead of deleting it, and has been warned on all five accounts already, but keeps deleting user talk page warnings (examples: [28][29]). --Plek 21:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:JJonathan just blanked this section. Restored and warned user. --Kurt Shaped Box 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiLoco

• WikiLoco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated vandalizingofthesame information (despite consensus). Other vandalism on other pages. Warnings abound on his talk page. McKay 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

another McKay 14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

cancer.org IP unblocked

12.168.24.203 is owned by the American Cancer Society. It was also the home of a particularly nasty troll from late 2005 through 2006. I've unblocked it at the direct request of the ACS - if anything nasty comes from this IP, please do let cancer.org know - it's supposed to be a work IP. I've asked them for a sysadmin contact to add to the User:12.168.24.203 page - David Gerard 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia page has become unusable

Resolved

Please help.

I am new to Wikipedia/WikiMedia. In the process of trying to make copy a Wikipedia HelpPage for my own Wiki I realized had I accidentally made the edits to Wikipedia itself. The edits involve two redirects, all focused around the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia

however, when i tried to revert/undo my accidental changes by doing another revert, it seems that all the history has gone. I think becuase of some cyclic redirects.

Could someone please fix these changes before too many people get upset! Sorry! Mr-morfik 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Yeah, double-check the hostname first :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research and linkspam on Talk:Mike Huckabee.

I've been trying to reason with an editor insistent on adding his own WP:OR family tree of Mike Huckabee ot the page. The link he provides here: Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Ancestry leading to this: [30], is admitted as speculation needing confirmation. (see note at the bottom.) Further, a check of that page's edit history shows it's all his own research and his own conclusions, and not cited from anywhere. I tried the 'random page' link on that wiki, and got NINE different pages he'd written. In fact, the entire site seems to be his professional genealogy site, replete with a user page advertising his fee rates. I've offered to him the option to find citations for HOW Huckabee's family history has influenced his professional career, policies, positions on issues, etc., but his is getting hostile. I cannot find a way to make him grasp that using a wiki as a source for a wiki is bad, that his wiki is OR, and probably spamming, and so on. Help Please? ThuranX 22:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The above editor is very confused about what is and is not allowed on talk pages. The issue of a Wikipedian doing source-based research has come up on WP:NOR many times. The answer has always been that Wikipedians are free to do research and post a link to the Talk page, if another Editor wants to add that link to the article they may. The prohibition involves Wikipedians adding their *own* OR to an article page. It does not involve Talk pages whatsoever. Wjhonson 22:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Another note, the complaining editor is consistently mischaracterizing the page linked. Please review the page yourself to see that it's fully documented, cited, sourced. His hyperbolic argument should be taken with a fairly large grain of salt. I have never, not once, tried to add this link *to* the article page. I posted a request on the Talk page, to see if someone would add the link. That is the approved, accepted, behaviour as you can find in the WP:NOR archives. The issue has come up many times. Wjhonson 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

the "wiki" you link to seems to operate as your own private website - all of the edits are by you, everything is by you. The material seems to represent a novel synthesis and as noted, you even say that it's "speculation" at one stage in the process - so no, it should not be added. --Fredrick day 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

While that may be true, this issue should not be here. I suggested that the complaining editor take his issue to WP:ATT and instead he takes it here ;) If the issue is that the site is not "reliable" then don't cite it. It's simple. Wjhonson 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is down the hall that way. If the material hasn't been posted to the article itself, but has just been placed on the talk page for comment, I fail to see why this would need any admin intervention. File for a third opinion or article RFC and get some more input. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 23:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll take it there. ANd thanks to Frederick Day. ThuranX 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to point out that I posted here BEFORE WJhonson suggested WP:ATT, and his mischaracterization, along with the 'pithy' winkface, are frankly irritating and smarmy behaviors. ThuranX 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:30 didn't work. anyone want to look in now? NOW it's getting combative, and I'm tired of explaining things over and over to him. ThuranX 06:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are making it combative. You agree with anyone who agrees with you and argue against anyone who doesn't. This board is not the place to have this discussion. As has been pointed out to you, what I posted on the Talk page does not violate any policy. You should take your concerns to WP:ATT which is where they belong instead of bothering Admins with things that do not require Admin intervention. Wjhonson 07:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Shomari15

Resolved

This user has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images to WP, either leaving them unsourced or tagging them with obviously invalid fair use claims. Despite the numerous messages left on his talk page, he continues to do so. He has already received his final warning for page vandalism too. Thought I should probably bring this here for admin attention, rather than at WP:AIV, as it's not really a case of "simple vandalism". Thanks a lot. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this user indefinitely for disruption, per my comments in the last thread about this person. He continues to upload photos with no copyright status or incorrect copyright status, and vandalize, and has been warned numerous times about this despite somehow never being blocked. More trouble than he's worth. Review welcome. Grandmasterka 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, though I would leave a comment on the talk page inviting him to promise not to continue the image misbehavior. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 07:39Z

Accusations in talk page

Againts WP:LIBEL User with account Rajsingam (talk · contribs) banned for numerous issues is now indicating that he shared his pass word with me and indirectly accuses me of using his previous account. He has a new account called Rajkumar_Kanagasingam (talk · contribs) . The accusations are in the talk page User_talk:Netmonger#Edits_of_Rajsingam. I want to find out what is the recourse for user like me who has never ever have done what he accuses me of. All what did was to advise him on his talk page as a newbie. Please helpRaveenS 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage Essjay picture

Resolved

Am I the only one who thinks that displaying Essjay's photograph with a DYK item on the Main Page is grossly inappropriate? Newyorkbrad 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not at all. Who signed off on that? Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Nishkid64, it seems. [31] Not one of his better choices, IMO. -- ChrisO 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Inappropriate how? Hbdragon88 23:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Mainly the fact that its totally self-referential- comes across as "ooh, look at us we're Wikipedia, aren't we important"? Also its unnecessarily unpleasant to Essjay. Oh and its rather POV- I mean he didn't fake credentials, he just claimed to have some he actually didn't have. WjBscribe 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree. And we don't even know that it's Essjay. Trebor 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• I agree, and so does Dragonfly, who has removed it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Inappropriate as in highly insensitive, and also grossly Wikipedia-centric. This is starting to look like organised persecution, frankly. -- ChrisO 23:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Of course it's inappropriate. Have some dignity, people. — Dan | talk 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse both the pic removal and the removal of the article itself from DYK. Ill-advised. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 100% Endorse removal - Munta 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Why pour more salt in the wound? Grandmasterka 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Putting the ethical issue aside this picture has no relable basis of fact. No one can confirm that this is Essjay. If someone uploads the portrait of Leonardo to wiki claiming it to be oneself, this would be as much reliable. Whatever people think about leaving him alone at last (or refusing to), ethics is more of a feeling while WP:RS is a policy. Support the removal. --Irpen 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm perfectly fine with the removal. Someone added that to Next update and I moved it to the Main Page. While it was at T:DYKT, no one seemed to complain about the image, or the hook, so I did not see any potential problem there. Nishkid64 23:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks like it was added to the update page by Parker007 [32]. WjBscribe 23:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • For the record, what I said only applies to Essjay's supposed image, not the DYK text entry on which I am not opining here. --Irpen 00:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Just as a side note... I really don't understand the reasoning behind it not being there. It seems like people are hiding behind self-reference as a way to keep mention of the scandal off the front page. --Dookama 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I dunno, I glanced at the article before and it basically said about the picture, "I don't know, this was posted to the user page so maybe it's him but maybe it's some random other living person we're now associating with this event." Honestly, I think there's a good case that could be made for its removal entirely on that ground alone. Bitnine 23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Try to assume good faith. When one proposed DYK hook was tasteless and inflamatory, and there were others that could have replace it, that's exactly what should have happened. The removal wasn't censorship, it was the correction of a mistake, which was placing the hook there the first time. (And even if that wasn't the case, WP:ASR is yet another reason it shouldn't be on the Main page.) Picaroon 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Feelings are running high in the community regarding essjay at them moment - but we're not here to serve ourselves - we're here to serve 'those out there'. The issue has gained wide publicity - today I read a report of the issue on the BBC - this exposure is going to generate traffic. Stepping back from my opinions as a wikipedian (And I'm conflicted as the next man on this - great wikipedian but possibly damaging etc. etc.) the press it's generated and the way the community deals with such things is good for us and our profile - it was a good and brave call putting it on the front page at this time and I welcome it. Upsetting for essjay? undoubtedly. Good for the wider community - well maybe.--Joopercoopers 01:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, stupid navel-gazing! Endorse removal of both the picture and the DYK. I'm all for the "persecution" (which I would call examination) of the matters behind Essjay and ramifications to Essjay of his mendacity, but this is an internal matter, and we are not an issue for DYK. Heck, a lot of the "did you knows" lately have been "did you care?" In this case, the photo is of a person who may not be Essjay, and all of this folderol is self-reference. Geogre 13:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy article now on AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy

The article is back at AfD under its new title having been nominated by Cool Cat. WjBscribe 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy closed by Mikkalai. WjBscribe 00:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerned about an image's copyright status

I noticed that an editor (User:Randomfrenchie) uploaded an image (Image:School 804.gif), claiming that the image is in the public domain. However, I am quite sure that this picture is not in the public domain, and I am also quite sure that the uploader did not get permission to use the picture as the summary suggests. (No, I can't prove it.) I have talked to this person in real life, and my conversation with him showed that he probably would have lied about an image's copyright status. What action should be taken about this image? PTO 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can talk to him about it (in real life or on-wiki), and if that doesn't work, you can take the image to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images or just slap a {{no license}} tag on it. If you have problems beyond that, you can come back here or talk to me. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:DE by Armon (talk · contribs)

I have had conflicts with this user for quite some time now, and lately I have been very patient with his non-stop personal attacks, but I have had enough. The most recent violation -- him calling me an "ass" -- was only the last straw in a series of abusive comments and actions. On the Christopher Hitchens page, the user removed extremely well-sourced and relevant commentary with the demand that my references must be online rather than from print sources. I found this absurd and anti-intellectual, and I posted a note to the WP:RS talk page] to that effect. There was unanimous agreement that such a demand was absurd. On the Hitchens talk page, Armon explained that my sources must be online because I had been "caught misrepresenting offline sources," a charge I found absurd and in violation of WP:AGF as well as WP:NPA. His "evidence" for the charge was an unexplained link to a discussion from weeks ago. When challenged on this point he simply stated that the evidence was on the page and reasserted his demand that I provide online sources. This seems to me an absurd form of WP:DE -- excluding sources because they are in print is ridiculous. Even if he was correct that they needed to be "fact-checked," the claim that offline sources cannot be fact-checked is ridiculous. I'm sure Armon (or anyone else) can get ahold of a library card if they think it is necessary to check if I am making up quotes. After discussion on my talk page -- with Armon continually accusing me in more and more hysterical terms of lying and deception -- it became clear that the so-called "lie" was a misunderstanding and a difference of opinion rather than a lie, and it also became clear that the so-called "lie" was about a tangential argument on a talk page rather than about something put into an article. I asked him to stop calling me names and I asked him to apologize for his violations of NPA and AGF; instead he continued to accuse me and then he called me an ass.

This is really just the tip of the iceberg. I have tried to be very patient with this user even while he has been goading me to overreact. But I have had enough of this. Actions like this are totally disruptive -- if he has real problems with an edit I make, that is fine to bring to discussion, but to raise a complete canard as a justification for deleting evidence that everyone agrees comes from a reliable source, and then to make the demand that all sources be available online, while calling me names and taunting me the whole time, is disruptive and deleterious to the project of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Commodore Sloat (talk • contribs)

A very interesting case of WP:POT, or more accurately, an editor who believes that attack is the best defence. The complaining editor has been exteremly uncivil and disruptive, and has bee called on it numerous times, includign on this project page. He has also usied this page as a platform to for canvassing, and has been called on it as well. Isarig 00:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Isarig is incorrect here. The specific charge of "canvassing" was withdrawn by the admin who made it after I explained more clearly what I was doing; I don't think there are any lingering doubts about my sincerity here. I have really been bending over backwards to not report this user, and it is only being called an "ass" that was the final straw for me leading to filing this report. csloat 00:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I just posted to csloat's talk page appealing for WP:AGF, and was summarily greeted there by Armon, who responded by calling sloat a megalomaniac, and basically contesting the validity of my post requesting good faith and civility from all sides. While I am a colleague of csloat's and so I have my biases, I'm hopeful that all these folks can focus on the issue at hand, rather than create reasons not to be civil. Upon a cursory review, my view of the recent 'hot activity' between Isarig, Armon, csloat, etc. seems to be an ongoing pattern with numerous editors tag-teaming to oppose csloat on political articles where he makes his edits.

To me, it appears a number of the editors opposing sloat believe that WP:AGF is not required - and they are in fact using bad faith to 'goad' csloat. To me, a lack of willingness to conduct oneself with self-respect is the cause of the conflict, not an argument over this edit or that edit. Csloat's edits are substantial and verifiable, in as far as I was able to determine. His conduct is at times unhelpful, but most editors who find themselves in situations like this 'slip up' and take the 'hostility bait' from time to time. That's why csloat, in response, can't risk being uncivil at all - if he takes the bait, he's only validating their attempt and nullifying any factual high ground he may occupy. Tough to stay on the 'high road' under attacks like that - in any case I hope Armon, Isarig and csloat get past this issue, provide a modicum of good faith and work to deal with article space issues constructively. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately this time I found out about this report, so in this case, unlike others, I will be able to respond. There are two issues, one, saying "stop being an ass" is not the same as calling someone an ass -a semantic but important difference. He was attempting to twist my words into an insult on another editor, which is perfectly clear if anyone reads the post I responded to. Isarig's point that this is a case of WP:POT, is well put.
Secondly sloat recently received a block for a BLP violation against Hitchens on a talk page. This was subsequently overturned by another admin as having been too long ago, but there was no argument that it was in fact a BLP vio. He had also had inserted poorly sourced blogged insults about his drinking into the Hitchens article. When this was removed he repeatedly reinserted it until he came up with a new version which pov-pushed his assertion that Hitchens is an alcoholic. Aside from the fact that this version was still not compliant with BLP, there was also the problem of his use of offline cites to make his case. Normally offline cites are fine, but when they're used to pov-push by an editor who has just violated BLP, and who has misrepresented cites in the past, then I think it's reasonable to demand that everyone be able to assess them. I doubt some of the periodicals he cited are available in New Zealand, and as he cited google hits as evidence of the notability of the topic, there should be no problem finding online RS sources -in fact I submitted one myself. <<-armon->> 02:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On #1, I did feel it was a reasonable claim that Elizmr was pretending not to understand something obvious. It;s not relevant to Armon's objectionable behavior. I was also not twisting his words in any way - the other editor I named was one who made the claim that Armon said was only made by "partisan detractors." So my question was quite reasonable and certainly didn't merit being called an ass.

as always, when you do it , it is a "reasonable claim". when others do it to you, it suddenly becomes a violation WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:DE. As I wrote, WP:POT, and as Armon wrote on you Talk page, this is quite appropriate. Isarig 03:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On #2, Armon is misrepresenting the issue -- the block was overturned in part because there was no clear BLP issue. Armon's well aware of that. There is even less of an issue now that we know that Hitchens himself (the BLP in question) acknowledged the term that I used ("alcoholic"). In any case, I have agreed not to call him that myself again. But none of that is relevant to Armon's behavior described above. His claim that I am still violating BLP on the page is absurd and unsupported. 3 - Armon keeps saying that it is reasonable to demand that everyone be able to assess offline citations -- they can. I provided full citations and Armon is welcome to get a library card. If he can't find them in New Zealand, interlibrary loan is an option. Or he can just ask me to send him copies of the articles. But none of that is the issue here - the issue is his disruptive editing and his personal attacks against me and his refusal to assume good faith. Claiming that I must be making up what is written in an article if it isn't online is a gross violation of WP:AGF. csloat 02:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This, OTOH, is an outright misrepresentation, The block was not overturned at all - it was shortened, by a lenient adming who was misled by you into believing this was your first block and that you were not warned first. Other editors who commented on the issue found it problematic that it was administered 2 weeks after the offence - but everyone agreed that it was an egregious BLP violation when made. Isarig 03:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that last response from sloat looks like an admission of WP:POINT. He inserted an undue amount of cites claiming alcoholism into the Hitchens article in order to make the point that it OK for him to rant on about how big a drunk the guy is. <<-armon->> 03:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Isarig: you are wrong about why the block was overturned, and you can read the discussion between admins about it yourself if you are interested. The admins can defend their own actions, but one of them points out that "it was semantics in an off the cuff talk page comment, rather than an outright slur." We now know that it wasn't even a slur since it is embraced by Hitchens himself. So no, everyone did not agree "that it was an egregious BLP violation when made" -- in fact, when it was made, not a single soul commented on it. Armon: that is a bizarre argument. I did not try to make any point about it being ok for me to rant on anything. I went and did some further research on a point that was already in the article that Isarig was removing, citing BLP violations that I thought were bogus. The fact that said research vindicated a particular choice of words is really beside the point. I have never "ranted on about how big a drunk the guy is" -- I have only made reference to his own statements that he drinks about a fifth of hard liquor a day. Anyway, this report is about Armon's behavior, not about Hitchens or about BLP, so most of this conversation is somewhat of a side show. csloat 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you examine Sloat's contribution history, you will see that he has habitually and unapologetically violated WP:CIVIL. His discussion style is to be dismissive of points raised by those he disagrees with rather than to entertain them and reply in a reasonable way in an effort to come to a neutral consensus. He tends to use disparaging language when discussing the contributions of others. This style tends to cause escalation of disagreements and weakens the Wikipedia community. Sloat needs to clean up his own act before accusing others. His complaints against Armon are frivilous. Elizmr 13:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:67.168.172.14

Resolved

Heavily spamming Safeway Inc. Stevage 00:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Used {{uw-vandalism4}} but I think this can go straight to WP:AIV. Blocks/bans get done faster there. x42bn6 Talk 00:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, will report there next time. Stevage 00:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. If in doubt, this place is always good. x42bn6 Talk 00:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mass Spamming By ANNAfoxlover.

A user, ANNAfoxlover, has been mass-spamming users to get them to sign the user's own autograph page. Despite several warnings from other users 1 2, including administrators, the user continues to spam others (see the contributions 3). On the opposite side of the board, about a hundred other users have actually signed this users autograph page.

The user also tried to force HighInBC to sign their autograph page 4, after he had said many times to the user that he was not going to sign it. The user appeared to stop when I intervened by saying that trying to force HighInBC could be seen as harassment.

I do not believe this user has bad intentions, but the mass spamming is a serious issue, and failure to acknowledge the warnings makes this situation even worse. Acalamari 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This matter is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Autograph pages. Probably best to try and keep the discussion in one place... WjBscribe 00:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll post this there then. Acalamari 00:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Verdict promising to increase sockpuppeteering

I just got an email from Verdict (talk · contribs) where he promised to start recruiting his friends to continue abusively editing Wikipedia articles. This user already has over 50 confirmed sockpuppets, averaging two to six new ones each day. Note that he knows the images he is uploading violate WP:FU and he knows he is not permitted to set up accounts to edit the Wikipedia. It's not just me who is reverting his edits or blocking him, but I'm doing most of the admin work. Any suggestions on what else to do? I suppose it may be worth locking down all the articles he is editing. He's already learnt how to bypass semi-protection, though. --Yamla 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Has this been checkusered? Newyorkbrad 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Does he use any particular pattern with his sock names? Anything in particular to look out for? IrishGuy ^talk 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Verdict. There are too many sockpuppets being created to really bother updating the checkuser page, I think. Probably the checkuser folks would kill me if I added all 50+ accounts. That said, it might be worth doing as he has switched to using open proxies now. As to the names, anything with 88 to 91 at the end, or often 180 or 360. A complete list of the ones we've found is available off of Verdict's user page, User:Verdict. --Yamla 01:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning, he now appears to be threatening me with physical harm. If the picture he keeps on uploading of himself is accurate, he's a big guy. Still, he doesn't live anywhere near me. --Yamla 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This user recently violated my privacy. The edit in question was removed by someone with oversight. Given his previous threats, I'm starting to feel a bit uneasy. --Yamla 03:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please change the puppet tags and categories on User talk:Coolioj and User talk:Mandalore11 from socks of Martin181 to socks of Verdict and change the CAT to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Verdict (and then delete the then empty CAT Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Martin181)? Verdict was created 14:25, 27 September 2006 and Martin181 was created 18:21, 4 January 2007, so Verdict would really be the puppeteer. Thanks. Wodup 03:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing requests for moves with active discussions

An admin closed the discussion on Clamp (manga artists) despite there being discussion going on even as he boxed it up. Is not the continuing active discussion on the talk page the definition of an "active discussion"? According to Husond (with funky characters), it does not appear to be so. Can I get some clarification here? Also, the template states "with clear consensus", but there was no consensus on the page. Should a "no consensus" closure be allowed while there continues to be debate? Kyaa the Catlord 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Again: 1) Move proposal was active for the 5-day period until it got listed on WP:RM's backlog. 2) Any admin may close a proposal after this time. 3) Especially if it's clear that there's never going to be any consensus and therefore no move. 4) Because a majority of users are opposing it. 5) So please avoid creating new polls. 6) And be WP:CIVIL.--Húsönd 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

History: The original move was done with no consensus, it was a badly done move (it lost the original page's history, etc), should it not be moved back to original, historic article at least to save the page history? (Yes, this is a bloody mess) Kyaa the Catlord 02:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out Husond ignored the following passage from the "closing a request for move" directions for admins when he speedy closed the discussion after I relisted it: "If a discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, relist it." I don't hold any further desire to revisit this debacle, but I felt that perhaps it would be best if someone would point out that proper procedure was denied. Kyaa the Catlord 12:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is only feasible to relist if there are prospects that a consensus will be reached if more time is given to the discussion. Not the case here. Polls can't last forever.--Húsönd 13:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor posting full name of another editor

Dman727 posted private information, including the full name of another editor Here. This is a bit of a sticky wicket because Eschoir is a user name which could be used to get this info on the intrawebs - but then again - he told Dman he objected to his name being published on Wiki and asked DMan to refactor it. Dman did not do so - so I just did. - FaAfA (yap) 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. I posted the full text of a public court document. Only AFTER I posted the court document did the user confirm that this was his case. The user Eschoir made the connection after the fact. If the user had not identified himself as being the author of the court document, the connection between the wiki screen name and real name would not be known. Relevant diffs. [33], [34] . Finally please advise if posting of freely available public court documents is contrary to wiki policy and I'll gladly cease and apologize. Dman727 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, FAAFA, I appreciate and thank you for refactoring it as the user requested. I would have done so, but you were much faster than I and removed his name 6 minutes after the user requested it. I hope you don't find me at fault for being away from wiki during those 6 minutes ;) Dman727 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Update. After further discussion with the wikipedian in question I have removed, per his request the entire remaining text of the public document from the talk page. FAAFA is correct that the document in question and the users identity is freely available via "intrawebs", however, there is no reason not to respect the wishes of the user in question here on wiki. If an admin would be so kind as to remove the diff history Here(containing the full name) I would greatly appreciate it. Dman727 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ban-Evasion

As many of you are aware of, User:Guardian Tiger, who has been banned by the community Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template, has continued to maintain the original block was unjustified. Now he has continued to ignore the ban and created a new ban-evading sock, User:LionheartX. (self-identified [[35]]) It should definitely be blocked on sight. Admin intervention is respectfully requested. Thank you--Certified.Gangsta 03:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, an involved admin, already decided to give LionheartX one more chance, based on his admission of wrongdoing and promise to reform - at the section you initiated on his talk page. Please don't venue shop for admins willing to block against Nlu's wishes. Picaroon 03:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu said other admins are not bound by his decision. [[36]] I also think Nlu did not realize he is "community-banned". Please don't accuse me of admin shopping. I'm trying to enforce a community ban. We can't let this be a bad example for future sockpuppeteers.--Certified.Gangsta 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, just for the record, that isn't a community ban (unless there's something other than the archive you linked to). Bish indefblocked and asked for review, and it was reviewed by a couple of admins. Community bans must require much more extensive discussion amongst the community. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Which it appears you are aware of and yet continue to misrepresent the facts. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Read carefully Dmcdevit explicitly stated the community's patience with me is exhausted.--Certified.Gangsta 03:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh goodness. So one editor pipes a link to the section of the blocking policy related to community bans == the user is community banned? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you wish to pursue an actual community ban, you are free to do so on the community noticeboard. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, so you're implying it's perfectly okay to create more socks to evade indef. blocks. Then what's the point of blocking anyway??--Certified.Gangsta 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not once have I said or implied that. I was simply correcting your misstatement that he was community banned. Two admins now (Ben Aveling and Nlu) have revoked the blocks and given the user in question another opportunity after they deemed unblock requests reasonable. If you feel that the user in question has exhausted his opportunities and should be community banned, feel free to propose it at WP:CN. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone say that? We're just here to say that you need to get your terminology right. Banning someone involves a community-wide process, and is a social construct in which a person is forbidden to edit here again under any name. Blocking someone is a technical measure used to prevent editing from an account. The two words are not synonymous. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The blocking admin of one of the socks, Dmcdevit, said it and all parties agree on the spot. Ben Aveling is not an admin. In fact, another admin User:Steel359 commented on Ben's activity on destroyer's talkpage on the edit summary upon protection. "Talk pages are not for chitchatting with banned users, multiple attempts with {{unblock}} failed already under other accounts" [[37]]--Certified.Gangsta 05:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But, User:Nlu is an admin. Please read the entire ANI threads from beginning to end, and you'll see the only one who supported the ban was Dmcdevit, the proponent. Many other people had opposed the ban. LionheartX 05:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Who? The only one who objected was Ben Aveling (non-admin) and he didn't object in that particular thread either.--Certified.Gangsta 05:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the whole thread. The particular thread is here. Admin privileges do not confer increased leverage in a dispute. BenAveling clearly objected in that thread. User:Shimeru also objected to a ban in the subsequent threads. LionheartX 06:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what Certified.Gangsta have said, I am not banned. The block log on my previous account were wrong. There was no strong consensus for a ban per official policy. I am willing to accept the conditions that User:Shimeru stated in the previous ANI threads. I request that Certified.Gangsta stop actively campaigning and venue shopping for admins to have me blocked per civility and harassment policies. I apologize for my previous account-jumping in the past. I want a chance to prove I can contribute positively to wikipedia. Please see the full discussion at User talk:Nlu and User talk:BenAveling.

Here is several threads recently on WP:ANI showing that there isn't strong support for the block or ban per official policy.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192#User:ApocalypticDestroyer.27s requests a review and a lifting of the permanent_block.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive207#ApocalypticDestroyer.27s_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.C2.A0.C2.B7_logs.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_user.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_log.29_request_for_a_lifting_of_the_permanent_block.

Thanks, LionheartX 03:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Block or ban? Block log anomaly

The main point of contention here is whether ApocalypticDestroyer's block was merely an indefinite block or an actual community ban. As noted in the block log, the block is labeled a ban. However, there is evidence that a full-fledged discussion to implement a community ban, mandated by WP:BAN in the cases of community bans, never took place. I believe that we should clear up this ambiguous situation once and for all. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think both LionheartX and Certified.Gangsta is reading too much into the language here. As I see it:

1. LionheartX's actions with prior accounts justify ban, but:
2. The situation isn't so bad that he shouldn't get another chance.

In other words, unless there is consensus otherwise (although I asked Dmcdevit for his input) I'm inclined to, as I said, give LionheartX one last chance. Any further disruptive behavior on his part (and massive spamming of admins' talk pages, which he did just now, is very close to being disruptive) will be the last straw. I indefinitely blocked the RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs) account, as it is no longer needed (and the fact that it is no longer needed was used by LionheartX as a reason in arguing that he was not sockpuppeting). Any further justified complaints about LionheartX's behavior, including spamming, edit warring, sock puppeting, &c., should draw an indefinite block on the account and a lengthy block on the underlying IP. Obviously, people may not necessarily agree with me, so I'd like to hear other opinions. --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely believe the block log was a mistake. In the block log, User:Dmcdevit cites the following WP:ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template. In that ANI thread, Dmcdevit clearly says,

"Regardless of which is the sock and which the main account, which has been blocked as a sock, and whether he's been banned or just blocked before, these accounts are all the same person, and I've blocked Apocalyptic Destroyer now too, and I will consider him and any and all of his sockpuppets and IPs from now on banned from Wikipedia unless anyone gives me any reason not too. The community's patience with him is exhausted. Dmcdevit·t 08:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"

User:BenAveling clearly replies with the following:

"I'm looking through Tiger's edit contribution for gross abuse, and I'm not seeing it. He's accused at least one admin of not being neutral, which is certainly uncivil of him but I think the Giano case established that it isn't a hanging offence. He's accused Isberg (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) of being a sock which is uncivil, even if he's right. (He isn't, is he? If he is, I owe him an apology.). He's accused Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) of harassing him and campaigning to have him banned, which is also accurate, and as far as I can see, he's done this complaining in relatively polite terms. He's used a lot of accounts over time, but no one (other than Certified Gangsta, formerly known User:Bonafide hustler) is claiming that he has been using them in parallel. So he may or may not be abusive, but he isn't a sock master. (What sort of self respecting sock puppetier loses the passwords?) I wouldn't be surprised if there's some 3RR violations and POV waring but most of his edits look reasonable, lots of wikilinking and some minor edits. Nothing that wikipedia will colapse for the lack of, but nice to have. I haven't checked every edit, especially from the long dead accounts. No doubt I've missed stuff. Just to set my mind at rest, will someone post some diffs to this gross abuse and harrasment and I will promptly and publically apologise for making this request. Sorry everyone for being difficult. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"

As we can all see, BenAveling clearly "gave him a reason not to" in that specific AN/I thread right after Dmcdevit posted that. Also note that the official policy clearly states "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users.". There is clearly no strong consensus for a ban. In the other two AN/I threads above, User:Shimeru also objected to ban and I respectfully accept the conditions he put forth. Therfore, I clearly was not banned. I respectfully request an admin to change the block logs on my previous accounts to note that it was a mistake and that I was not banned. Thanks.

Please refer to the lengthy discussion on User talk:Nlu, User talk:BenAveling, and these three AN/I threads.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192#User:ApocalypticDestroyer.27s requests a review and a lifting of the permanent_block.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive207#ApocalypticDestroyer.27s_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.C2.A0.C2.B7_logs.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_user.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_log.29_request_for_a_lifting_of_the_permanent_block.

Thank you. LionheartX 06:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We are really making a poor example out of this. I am very afraid that future sockpuppets will refer to this case as a way out. As for indef. block vs. ban, it is all semantics. He evade block/ban too many times. He crossed the line, thus a block is necessary. Anyway, I kind of regret I brought up this issue cuz it seems like people are forgiving Lion because they have problems with me. Anyway one last point before I leave, this edit shows a sign of bad-faith and refusal to acknowledge his mistakes. [[38]]--Certified.Gangsta 07:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated by the above users, a block is different from a ban. A ban involves an exhaustive process with strong consensus. And I'm not sure how that edit shows a "sign of bad-faith and refusal to acknowledge his mistakes". I was asking him to keep the discussion in one place. LionheartX 07:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

5th millennium and SashatoBot (talk · contribs)

Because of the way sr:50. век (50th century) is set up, many of the centuries are linked to 5th millennium by that bot. Is there an exception to WP:3RR for reverting a rouge bot? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Profound Intent Versions 1 and 2

Profound Intent was created by User:Davidcarter biowriter on 2 March, and is currently undergoing AfD. The AfD has been rife with vandalism from the above editor and various anonymous IPs including editing comments from "delete" to "keep" and veiled legal threats. I've just seen that Profound Intent (band) has been created by User:Dcarterwriter (spot the connection?) on 6 March. I'm not aware of any speedy categories that apply, but I'm assuming one must? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Something else I should point out - User:Dcarterwriter created his account at 01:20 on 6 March, a mere 6 minutes after his original account was blocked at 01:14. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this warrant a block?

I saw this edit while reverting vandalism from that IP. It happened a couple of days ago, so I think it's too old for AIV. Should any action be taken for that particular edit? Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 06:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is a threat of physical attack, but it's made to a -bot. Then again, we block for the threat of attack, not the likelihood of its fulfillment. Seems to be a dynamic IP, though, so a block probably won't do any good unless we find the user in the act. Geogre 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why and how is User:Scott3 a bot? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry. I was apparently mistiming my drugs. You're right. It is a threat of attack, so yes, it is a block offense, if we can catch the IP at work. I see that the user has gotten a "this is your last warning" warning, so a block at the next hint of trouble. Geogre 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Unreasonable deletion of info

User Aivazovsky has been reverting and deleting information on Azeri-related articles either labelling them as vandalism or making references to an arbitration process on the Armenian-Azeri edit wars, which according to him prevents users from creating or editing "sensitive" (?) articles whatsoever. Without being able to provide a single source, he removes chunks of neutrally-sourced information accusing others of "wanting to provoke an edit war." [39] In the article Azeris in Armenia he deleted information accompanied by three sources [40] He also refuses to provide explanations for the deleting of info (which I had to restore) on Erivan khanate: [41] Another example of unexplained deletion, March Days: [42]. Parishan 08:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I too, during recent changes patrol, have had cause to question Aivazovsky's disruptive edits and reversions, especially his edit summaries stating that he is reverting vandalism when all he is doing is removing edits he disagrees with. LittleOldMe 11:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries at N.W.A.

A Wikiquette alert, well, alerted me to the gross incivility displayed in the edit summaries of Kemor (talk · contribs) and Payne2thamax (talk · contribs) at N.W.A.'s history page. I gave both WP:NPA warnings at their talk pages (level 3 for User:Kemor and level 4 (previous notice) for User:Payne2thamax). These two editors appear to be engaged in an edit war at the article; perhaps some intervention by someone more powerful and more knowledgable about the topic than I would calm the situation. (Originally posted at WP:AN in error. Sorry.) --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Macedonia

Macedonia (talk · contribs) has long been criticised for using his user page as a political soapbox. This has basically been his only activity on Wikipedia for over half a year. After comments on this RfC, I felt justified in deleting his page (twice, after another attempt by him) and telling him that henceforth no political content whatsoever would be tolerated there ([43]). There was also an attempt to get him to change his username, which however was rejected at WP:RFC/N. He now put up this: [44]. Note again his political jibe at "Greek fabricators who continue to spread anti-Macedonian and facist propaganda", and his wording about the RFC/N "keeping the name of my userpage MACEDONIA" - that seems to show that the userpage, rather than anything else he does on Wikipedia, is really the only thing he cares about.

Unless there are objections here, I'll delete that page again, and I'm considering a block warning and/or page protection if he tries this once more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, honestly I can't see any real harm coming from this user. Deleting his userpage and blocking him might be a violation of WP:NOT#CENSOR and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND so I guess I would not support these harsh measures. Sorry. :-/ Húsönd 13:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. The present contents are a personal attack at the least (the thing about the "Greek fabricators" and their "fascist propaganda" is directed at fellow Wikipedians, not some abstract Greek opponents elsewhere). And enforcing WP:USER isn't censorship. We've deleted pages and (I think) even blocked users for doing much more harmless things with their pages - various cases of kids using theirs as a chatroom come to mind. This user's pages, for well over a year now, have always been breaches of the no-soapboxing rules of WP:USER. And he's been playing cat-and-mouse with the community over it during all this time - always seemingly acquiescing to enforced removals of offensive content whenever people had lost their patience with him, and then sneakily letting the page grow again with new rants. As I told him last time, I'm sick and tired arguing with him just how much political content is acceptable, when I know he's going to dodge it in a week again. That's why I thought we should set him an easy-to-remember and unambiguous limit this time: zero political content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point. I don't tend to be politically correct and I have a rather lenient attitude towards users who express their animosity towards a specific entity as long as they don't start making personal attacks or other kind of disruptive behavior. However, I checked the deleted versions of his user page and it does seem like this user's been using his userpage as a provocative soapbox only. I have a long experience of warmongering users from the Balkans and a firm response is often the best remedy. So yeah, go ahead and give him a last warning.--Húsönd 14:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy

I've just fully protected this - the article had at least 5 users edit warring (all within the last hour) and try as I did to begin to warn them; it seemed more just kept jumping in. So, I've sent them all to the talk page (discussions on m:The Wrong Version have already started). Thoughts? Glen 10:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• My thoughts are that it should be a sub-stub. It's a news release rather than an article to talk about this controversy, as it's still underway. I hate it when people try to write an "article" on something that has just begun to happen. When they do, they become a secondary source -- journalists -- instead of a tertiary source -- encyclopedists. If a person is reporting, then she or he is not writing an encyclopedia article. This is in addition to the fact that "the controversy" can't be written about until it has a defined shape, with cause, event, and effect. The "effect" bit is still nebulous. Wikipedia is not CNN (or the Drudge Report or Skippy the Bush Kangaroo). Geogre 13:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with User:Geogre. I've been editing fairly heavily on the article mostly in an effort to keep the thing half-way decent and inline with policy. I tried to hold off on editing it but found that it was glaringly out of step in terms of policy and since my first edits I've made efforts to combat that. (→Netscott) 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• As usual I agree with The Geogre. In a year or so we may have a clear idea of the historical import of this, if there is any, but right now we really don't. A stub with a link to Wikinews (which is for news, unlike Wikipedia which is not) would be fine. How can we record what the considered view of the world is, when the world has barely begun to consider the thing? All we get is a series of gut reactions, and often very poorly informed ones at that. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• This article represents a unfortunate Catch 22 situation. Having an article is overfocusing on current news, self-referential and seems to overtrumpet the importannce of Wikipedia. But deleting the article (or most of its content) looks like a cover-up and gives some the impression that we wish to hide the controversy that surrounded Essjay's retirement to save embarassment. Hopefully once the dust has settled we'll be in a better position to decide how an encyclopedia should cover this controversy if at all... WjBscribe 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • For now the article will need strict attention from policy wonks like me and others. Eventually I think it will stabilize. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with Geogre. Or, rather, our current practice strongly disagrees with Geogre, so strongly that what I think isn't that relevant. Look at the Main Page, the page most users see as representing the Wikipedia. See the In the news section? It's rather prominent. Everything on it is "something that has just begun to happen", or was when it was added. The only difference is that they aren't embarassments to us. Tell you what, "sub-stub" Garuda Indonesia Flight 200, Lewis Libby, and Estonian parliamentary election, 2007 (just to name the top 3 items in that section today), and if those actions get community approval, then come back here saying it is clear Wikipedia policy not to have articles on recent events until the effect is clear. Until then, it wouldn't just look like a cover-up, it would be a cover-up. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Um ... I don't think that we have had much success in covering this situation up. In fact, I think it has long since taken on a completely disproportionate importance. Newyorkbrad 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Could it partially be a reaction to how people are treating it in comparison to other similarly-referenced events, though? Certainly, the community's closeness to the subject lends extra detail, but when people keep reacting that we don't need this article, or that it should disappear, when there's no significant reason beyond the IDONTLIKEIT situation, it's merely asking for more detail and more attention, is it not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • How disproportionate it is not clear. We're the #11 web site in the world, and we had a scandal with one of our most highly trusted users: Bureaucrat (22 of them), Arbitrator (15 of them), and CheckUser (13 of them), all at once. Is it really that disproportionate? The #13 web site is Microsoft.com, the #14 is EBay - if one of their top dozen people was forced to resign under a scandal, do you think it would substantially less coverage? In any case, the point of I'm saying is that the proposal to "sub-stub" the article is clearly wrong. Even if the coverage the media gave it is disproportionate, and that is not clear, they did give it substantial coverage, and it is not up to us to second-guess them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Some help needed

Hello people. Can I please get someone to help me with Emir Arven? Myself and this user have had disputes in the past, and both of us have been blocked as a result of personal attacks against each other. Our last dispute was a result of this edit summary. I then calmly started a discussion with the user about why they would falsely accuse me like that, but he just turned hostile straight away. The user then started provoking me some more, and that's when we started an exchange of personal attacks. I was blocked for 72 hrs for personal attacks, and he was blocked for 2 weeks, as he is a repeat offender. After his block expired, things cooled down, and I haven't heard anything from him so far. But, not ten minutes ago, Emir Arven has restarted with his provocative and offensive edits/behaviour (see here, here, and here. I am asking if an administrator (or maybe more) could step in, and tell the user to stop falsely accusing, stop provoking, and maybe tell him to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I would also like all the personal attacks this user has made against me on his talk page and elsewhere be removed, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Please help, because when I'm in situations like these, I can't help but retaliate, and that would just result in bad results for me. Anyway, help! —KingIvan 11:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say this is totally false. This user, Ivan Kricancic was warned earlier by AnonEMouse because of his sockpuppet past. You can see that here: Ivan Kricancic - proven sock puppets.

Here is conclusion about that

Case proven. Besides common interests, origins, and residences, they both edit the exact same deletion disputes minutes after each other, with the same opinions, and even same misspellings (it's). If they aren't the same person, they are brothers editing from the same computer.

• 04:52, September 28, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 27 * 04:58, September 28, 2006 Rts_freak Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 27 [4] * 00:33, September 29, 2006 Rts_freak Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 29 [5]
• 00:37, September 29, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 29 Note their identical rationale for keeping fair use images.
• 11:40, December 1, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petula Shaw-Dennis [7]
• 11:43, December 1, 2006 Rts_freak Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petula Shaw-Dennis [8] Note that this was Rts_freak's only edit for 3 days before and 6 days after - he logged on, wrote "Delete - Per nom. I mean, come on." in an AfD, and logged off for six more days.

Blocking Rts freak, strongly warning Ivan Kricancic not to do that again. --AnonEMouse (squeak)

I have found new evidence that he still continues his sockpuppet behaviour, so I told him that I would report him if he continued:

He told me once: Whenever I see an edit made by a fanatical Bosniak user, I will be sure to include your user name in the edit summary., and immidiately he went to Srebrenica Genocide and Alija Izetbegović articles to provoke. He didn't read the articles, but he reverted it immediately in order to provoke. I asked him about IP address and he didn't answer me. But continued to provoke. Here is another earlier case that proves this, just compare his address 58.165.126.17 and his edit58.165.126.17.

• Ivan Kricancic - insult 1
• Ivan Kricancic - insult 2
• Ivan Kricancic - insult 3
• Ivan Kricancic - insult 4

Ivan Kricancic

• Ivan Kricancic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ivan Kricancic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 58.165.115.192 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Code letter: C

So he came here, as he did before to talk lies about me, because I found more facts about his sockpuppet role: 58.165.126.167.I said I will report him if he continues, I didn't insult him. And the others will decide about my accusation. Emir Arven 13:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Tell The Thruth / Peniel Pentecostal Church

Resolved

Tell The Thruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - repeated page blankings and undiscussed reverts, despite warnings, to Peniel Pentecostal Church and Talk:Peniel Pentecostal Church. Tearlach 13:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My article

Please can someone delete my article, I hate the entire thing. It's appalling and insulting to me. --Keanu Reeves 13:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User blocked, nothing to see here. Deiz talk 14:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar, again

Just another note: Hkelkar has also been running a spambot from the University of Texas IP addresses, it's been used to spam multiple forums and wikis with links to his case on here, and it's been done so often, that we've been IP-banned and IP-blocked from forums and wikis, with the IT department having to resolve it frequently.

If you see anon IPs editing like Hkelkar, be aware that they will usually have a spambot running, so be careful.... --Trudiruddsen 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Slow, sneaky vandalism from 12.208.153.82 (again).

Resolved

As previously menionted here, 12.208.153.82 (talk · contribs) has a history of silently altering figures in articles. This IP was blocked on Feb 15 for doing so, and SpuriousQ complained about this vandal returning about a week ago (see his note in WP:AN Archive 208). His most changes are [45], [46], [47], [48], etc. As SpuriousQ mentioned, "this kind of vandalism is particularly pernicious because it is likely to go undetected (as a several of his edits have)." He has been warned multiple times, with no response. His edit rate is rather low so AIV doesn't seem the place to report and the earlier block did not appear to be long enough to get his attention. Would someone consider placing a longer block on this IP? —RP88 14:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked it for a year. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay Talk page History

As there is no talk page to discuss this, and the page is protected, could somebody comment on this recent change

[49]

I feel that having the two links on the talk page are valid links. Some people who are new to Wikipedia, having come here to read up about the controvercy, may not know how to navigate the history [50]. The inclusion of the links made clear that Wikipedia wasn't censoring information and also helped novices find the details that they were looking for.

Regards - Munta 15:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They can find the button at the top of the page. If not, then oh well, these are the type of people who slow down to look at a car accident. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think thats rather dismissive of people who use Wikipedia. I came here first to research - now I edit. It took me days to realise I could look at the full history of an article - So these are our future editors you are are dismissing. - Munta 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would you be reading Essjay's talk page history if you were just researching? What casual reader would care about internal strife we had once? -Amarkov moo! 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think characterising this situation as 'internal strife' is dismissive, at best. – riana_dzasta 15:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on the Essjay controversy, unfortunately, so you can read about it there. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's necessary to get rid of the links. I say that if Essjay left them there, preserve his page as he wanted it kept. --Dookama 18:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone who cares about the reliability and trustworthiness of WP would want to see the details of this particular dispute, for it bears upon the credibility of everything we have been doing. It is not a minor incident in the development of WP--it is by now universally known to anyone who knows about WP at all, and there is no point trying to pretend otherwise.

Within WP, Essjay is (was) as public figure. When he chose to give interviews to a reporter for an internationally known magazine he became a public figure in the most direct way.

Why we would conceal the details--obviously, because we are ashamed of them. And well we should be; but the only way to restore our reputation is to admit the details of our failings. Consider other cases of attempts to hide information that ought to be public--first of all, within the last six years--and more generally. Those associated with Enron or its accountants have good reason to wish the details private, but everyone else as even better reason to keep them public. some political figures are aware of how they will look to history, and thus have good reason to keep their documents from public view. I doubt they will get away with it. Nixon too tried to conceal the documentation.

We are not quite as important as those people in a world-wide sense--but within our own part of the world we are. I try to persuade other librarians to use WP--it will now be much more difficult. I try to persuade faculty whom I know to contribute--it will now be very much harder--they now have good reason to prefer one of he competitive projects.

IWISHITWERENTSO. DGG 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He didn't, they were added by the page protector at my suggestion so that the paranoid couldn't claim people were trying to hide the comments. Even if you can find the history they are still useful because you can go directly to the two major revisions easily rather than needing to search through an obscenely long diff list. --tjstrf talk 18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dpotop blocked without warning or explanation

User:Dpotop was blocked by User:Blnguyen for a time period of 48-hours. The reason given on the blockpage is this:

“ (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (NPA Khoikhoi -> coicoi (Romanian for testicles)) ”

There are a few problems with that reasoning.

1. Coicoi, in Romanian, does not mean testicles. Coaie, in slang language, means testicles and some may say also coi.
2. Dpotop called Khoikhoi for coicoi on March 7; and about 24 hours later, he was blocked for 48 hours.
3. Dahn confronted Dpotop about calling Khoikhoi for coicoi, in which Dpotop answered by saying this:

“ Calling Khoikhoi coicoi is perfectly understandable for a Romanian speaker since: 1. letter K is very rare in Romanian and 2. Romanian orthography is phonetic. Hence, the most immediate and spontaneous way of writing Khoikhoi in Romanian is coicoi. It’s but a spontaneous reaction of a Romanian person transliterating the name of Khoikhoi. Nothing more than that. Implying bad faith or insulting intentions is simply absurd. ”

This is true. If I wanted to write the name Khoikhoi in Romanian, it would be written as "coicoi."

4. Dpotop was not warned by any admin, for any violation; he was not notified that he was blocked; and nor was he told where he could appeal against his block. I think the block is unfair and that Dpotop should be unblocked on grounds that there is no proof of him intending to use the alternative spelling as a way to insult Khoikhoi. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User PaxEquilibrium again

I was once again cleared by Checkuser here [51] as not being anyone's sockpuppet and this user files another (identical actual) accusation yet again. Besides similar IP's there is absolutly no similarity between me and this person, yet he continues to accuse me. How long will I be harassed by this raving madman before someone tells him to stop? Tar-Elenion 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)